LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



fp.6:^^|5i<f 1 

. ^- ■ im^^H 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. | 



OF 



THE 



HOUSE OF DEPUTIES 



GENERAL CONVENTION 



OF THE 



PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 



IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 



HELD i:]Sr NEW YORK CITY, OCTOBER, J^.D. IS^^, 



AS REPOETED EOE "THE CHUECHMAN," 



... 

7 2. 



HARTFORD, CONN.: 
M. H, MALLORY AND COMPANY, PRINTERS. 

1874. 



Th£ Lib&ary 
OF Comtuwm 



LC Control Niomber 




tmp96 031477 



INDEX TO SPEAKERS. 



Abercrom'bie, d.d., the Rev. R. M., of New Jersey, 19, 68, 

109, 122, 401, 404, 410. 
Adams, d.d., the Rev. W., of Wisconsin, 19, 20, 35, 39, 42, 

45, 51, 52, 72, 85, 86, 105, 106, 121, 160, 168, 175, 185, 

189, 222, 226, 252, 261, 264, 272. 288, 290, 303, 314, 315, 319, 

321, 324, 327, 336, 338, 345, 347,' 348, 368, 371, 376, 380, 385, 

388, 400, 401, 403, 405, 408, 410, 411, 412. 
Andrews, d.d.. the Rev. C. M., of Virginia, 93, 144, 176, 187, 

222, 224, 226, 252, 253, 255, 263, 274, 275, 285, 344, 345. 
Atwater, Mr. I., of Minnesota, 100, 151, 190, 217, 273, 280, 

281, 310, 313, 315, 316, 317. 
Ayrault, d.d., the Rev. W., of Central New Tork, 54, 112, 

113, 128, 129, 236, 247, 271, 272, 275, 374, 418, 419. 



Balch, Archdeacon, of Canada, 49. 

Baldwin, Mr. H.P., of Michigan, 72, 102, 103, 163, 222, 271. 
Barber, the Rev. S. P., of Easton, 113, 118, 119, 120. 
Bartholow, Mr. E. M., of Kansas, 194, 326. 
Battle, Mr. W. H., of North Carolina, 18, 96. 108, 126, 146, 

161, 167, 186, 189, 190, 193, 222, 247, 278. 
Beach, d.d., the Rev. A. B., of New Yort:, 14, 17, 53, 61, 64, 

65, 72, 88, 92, 93, 133, 179, 277, 278, 300, 301, 369, 370, 374, 

375, 380, 393, 395, 410, 417, 418, 419, 420. 
Beardeley, d.d., the Rev. E. E,,of Connecticut, 40, 95, 96, 

109, 111, 124, 147, 171, 223, 273, 276, 381, 413, 414. 
Beers, d.d., the Rev. H., of Wisconsin, 52, 70, 5:22, 229, 260, 

284, 318. 

Benedict, d.d., the Rev. S., of Georgia, 62, 63, 154, 255 260, 

261, 262, 267, 320. 
Berkley, D.D., the Rev. E. F., of Missouri, 18, 20, 95, 102, 173, 

175. 

Birdsall, the Rev. E., of California, 53. 

Blair, Mr. M., of Maryland, 37, 97, 103, 118, 121, 252, 258, 268, 

271, 276, 279, 292, 303, 311, 313, 321, 325. 
Blanchard, Mr. E. W., of Maryland, 174, 205, 242. 
Bolton, the Rev. J., of Pennsylvania, 223, 229, 337 338. 
Breck, d.d., the Rev. C, of Central Pennsylvania, SO, 172, 

290, 345. 

Brown, d.d., the Rev. J. H. H., of Albany, 65, 90, 349, 402. 

Brown, the Rev. J. W., of Michigan, 39, 62, 98, 159, 186, 222, 
281, 337, 338, 369, 379. 

Brune, Mr. F. W., of Maryland, 43, 181. 

Burgess, d.d., the Rev. A., of Massachusetts, 13, 33, 59, 104, 
105, 107, 124, 126, 140, 145, 160, 163, 246, 247, 251, 267, 280 
316, 317, 328, 340, 382, 383, 397, 398, 400, 403, 420. 

Burg win, Mr. H., of Pittsburgh, 14, 15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 25, 28 
29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 91, 105, 106, 108, 114 
121, 122, 124, 130, 131, 143, 146, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 
158, 159, 160, 161, 164, 168, 169, 176, 182, 188, 189, 194, 199 
209, 221, 222, 223, 245, 247, 250. 275, 277, 278, 279, 282, 289 
336, 337, 338, 348, 353, 357, 359, 360, 362, 363, 369, 370, 371* 
375, 376, 392, 394, 397, 419, 420, 421, 422. 

Burr, D.D., the Rev. E., of Ohio, 44, 62, 78, 128, 320. 

Cady, D.D., the Rev. P. K., of New York, 69, 70, 71, 94, 174, 
178. 193, 199, 221, S23, 264, 272, 273, 274, 277, 301, 304 
353, 363. 

Case, Mr. G. W., of Pittsburgh, 61, 165, 388, 403. 
Chase, d.d., the Rev. S., of Illinois, 19, 166, 216, 217. 



Churchill, Mr. S. B., of Kentucky, 55, 61, 112. 

Clark, D.D., the Rev. J. L., of Connecticut, 222, 268, 333. 

Clark, D.D., the Rev. S. A., of New Jersey, 4-3, 90, 124, 172, 

177, 216, 217. 236, 237, 238, 271, 293, 305, 369, 378, 408, 412, 

421. 

Comstock, Mr. G. F., of Central New York, 16, 21, 25, 37, 53, 

54. 56, 58, 70, 152, 157, 160, 161, 164, 165, 270, 274, 276, 278, 

309, 313, 316, 327. 
Cooke, D.D., the Rev. S.,pf New York, 55. 
Coppee, Mr. H., of Central Pennsylvania, 101, 144, 254, 257, 

258, 274, 275, 290. 
Corbett, d.d., the Rev. S., of Illinois, 63, 74, 360. 
Cornwall, Mr. W., of Kentucky, 22, 26, 98, 119, 126, 173, 250, 

263, 273. 
Coxe, Bishop, 423. 

Crane, d.d., the Rev. W. C, of Mississippi, 89, 90. 
Crosdale, d.d., the Rev. J., of Easton. 112. 
Cuyler, Mr. G. W., of Western New York, 19. 

Dalzell, D.D., the Rev. W. T. D., of Louisiana, 61, 75, 92, 207, 
222, 376. 

Daj^mude, Mr. J. L., of Iowa, 419. 

De Koven, d.d., the Rev. J., of Wisconsin, 19, 41, 42, 143, 
175, 181, 182, 183, 199, 200, 205, 249, 254, 258, 259, 325, 33S, 
359, 361, 362, 363, 364, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 373, 378, 
380, 382, 390, 397, 404, 406, 417, 418. 

De Mill, Mr. P. E., of Michigan, 167. 

De Rosset, Mr. A. J., of North Carolina, 278, 336, 374, 
393. 

Douglas, the Rev. W. K., of Mississippi, 37, 56, 174, 282, 355, 

371, 383, 386, 397. 
Dudley, d.d., the Rev. T. U., Jr., of Maryland, 165, 359. 

Easton, the Rev. G. A., of California, 19, 27, 273. 
Edwards, the Rev. Mr., of Lichfield, England, 49 92. 
Elliott, D.D., the Rev. J. H., of South Carolina, 267, 271. 



Fairbanks, Mr. G. R., of Tennessee, 122, 305, 307. 

Farrington, d.d., the Rev. W. G., of New Jersey, 15, 16, 19, 
27, 28, 29, 31, 37, 44, 58, 59, 62, 70, 93, 122, 166, 180, 190, 
191, 249, 251, 274, 319, 361 372, 373, 381, 383, 393, 416, 
418. 

Fish, Mr. H., of New York, 53, 113. 
Forsyth, Mr. J., of Albany, 275, 351. 
Fuller, Archdeacon, 48. 

Fulton, D.D , the Rev. J., of Alabama, 17, 18, 20, 21, 35, 43, 
53, 60, 82, 83, 86, 96, 105, 121, 143, 164, 165, 179, 194, 198, 
199, 205, 272, 274, 275, 291, 294, 298, 302, 303, 311, 313, 314, 
316, 317, 318, 321, 322, 348, 349, 355, 370, 371, 373, 374, 375, 
385, 388, 393, 394. 



Garrett, d.d., the Rev. A. C, of Nebraska, 231. 
Garrison, d.d., the Rev. J. F., of New Jersey, 92, 98, 295. 
Garth waite, Mr. J. C, of New Jersey, 81. 
Geer, d.d., the Rev. G. J., of New York, 221, 357, 381, 418, 
422. 

Geddee, the Rev. Dr., of Canada, 48. 

Getz, the Rev. H. S,, of Pittsburgh, 189, 190, 222, 249. 



iv 



Gillespie, the Rev. G. D., of Michigan, 16,93, 145, 166, 178, 

189, 221, 310, 401. 
Giraiilt, the Rev. J. F., of Louisiana, 64, 94, 100, 101, 271, 

272, 273, 278, 318, 347, 349, 361, 382, 392, 394. 
Gray, the Rev. W. C, of Tennessee, 247, 315, 317. 
Gregg, Rev. F. M., of Illinois, 310. 

Hall D D , the Rev. C. H., of Long Island, 29, 30, 90, 91, 94, 
121, 124, 129, 130, 131, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 148, 
151 153 155 156. 158, 165, 169, 175, 177, 1^3, 194, 236, 
237 244, 245, 248, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 260, 261, 
262' 266, 267, 268, 271, 272, 300, 301, 304, 305, 311, 313, 
318 319, 320, 324, 326, 327. 335, 386, 351, 352, 353, 355, 
357! 358. 359, 361, 363, 366, 368, 369, 370, 374, 375, 876, 
379, 380, 381, 387, 398, 413, 420. 

Haff, the Rev. F. R., of Wisconsin, 59. 

Hanckel, the Rev. J. S., of Virginia, 14, 16, 36, 37, 116, 117, 
124, 131, 132, 173, 216, 221, 222, 267, 278, 291, 306, 307, 
311. 

Haekins, d.d., the Rev. S. M., of Long Island, 18, 34, 390, 
418. 

Harris, the Rev. S. S., of Louisiana, 68. 
Hayden, Mr. H. S., of Connecticut. 237. 
Hazlehuret, Mr. I., of Pennsylvania, 240. 
Henshaw, the Rev. D., of Rhode Island, 280, 281. 
Hopkins, dd., the Rev. J. H., Jr., of Albany, 402, 401, 407, 
415, 420, 421. 

Hubbard, d.d., the Rev. I. G., of New Hampshire, 64, 107, 

140, 167, 360, 378, 379, 380, 381. 
Huntington, d.d., the Rev. W. R., of Massachusetts, 111, 

254, 256, 257, 259, 267, 268, 273, 294, 295, 389, 394, 396, 397, 

408, 410, 418, 419. 

Jenkins, Mr. C. J., of Georgia, 53. 

Jennings, the Rev. C. P., of Missouri, 90, 172, 250, 351, 

353, 403, 404, 412. 
Johnson, the Rev. E. E., of Connecticut, 176, 265, 266, 282, 

401. 

Kidney, d.d., the Rev. J. S., of Minnesota, 65, 81, 94, 16S, 
175, 249, 250, 268, 276, 318, 325, 391, 407, 415. 

King. Mr. J. A., of Long Island, 159, 181, 182, 192, 193, 222, 
250, 252, 273, 275, 301, 302, 311, 313, 314, 338, 351, S59, 366, 
368, 369, 370, 375, 381, 387, 395, 396. 

Kingston, Lord Bishop of, 47. 

Knickerbacker, d.d., the Rev. D. B., of Minnesota, 64, 90, 96, 
410. 

Lamberton, Mr. R. A., of Central Pennsylvania, 20, 222, 322, 
328. 

Leeds, d.d., the Rev. G., of Maryland, 64, 65, 80, 174, 251, 

279, 281, 282, 302, 327, 409. 
Lewin, d.d., the Rev. M., of Maryland, 20, 26, 44, 60, 70, 107, 

145, 149, 150, 156, 173, 175, 179, 180, 191, 222, 234, 235 300, 

311, 327, 3:i6, 338. 
Lichfield, Lord Bishop of, 45, 91. 

Livingston, Mr. C, of New York, 14. 17, 18, 70, 71, 118, 141, 
143, 144, 176, 217, 221, 262, 267, 272, 274, 300, 320, 335, 
357. 

Locke, D.D., the Rev. C, of Illinois, 56, 112, 143. 

Mackall, Mr. R. C, of Easton, 187. 

Marks, the Rev. A., of Mississippi, 104, 375. 

Marple, the Rev. A. A., of Central Pennsylvania, 109, 112, 

157, 165, 266, 338, 363, 370, 372, 379, 393. 
Martin, Mr. J. G., of North Carolina, 149, 310. 
Mas?ie,Mr. N. H., of Virginia, 19, 54, 105, 247, 370. 
Matthews, Mr. N., Treasurer, 170. 

McCrady, Mr. E., of South Carolina, 13. 21, 97, 99, 152, 248, 

272, 276, 278, 291, 296, 301, 314, 322, 324, 360, 361, 362. 
McCullough, the Rev. J. D., of South Carolina, 380. 
Mcllwain, the Rev. R. C, of Iowa, 273, 403. 
McWhorter, Mr. G. C, of Central New York, 59, 419. 



Mead, d.d., the Rev. W. C, of Connecticut, 12, 13, 14, 16, 

17, 18, 20, 25, 27, 28, 34, 37, 41, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 
60, 65, 74, 75, 76, 78. 80, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 93, 94, 98, 
100, 101, 107, 109, 112, 113, 120, 122, 158, 159, 172, 173, 
177, 190, 192, 193, 252, 266, 268, 271, 274, 277, 311, 314, 318, 
322. 

Meads, Mr. O., of Albany, 15, 16, 21, 29, 109, 176, 178, 179, 185, 

275, 276, 335, 336, 355. 
Meigs, Mr. H.. of New Jersey, 36, 37, 39, 50, 174, 193, 300,308, 

313, 336, 354, 407. 

Minnigerode, d d., the Rev. C, of Virginia, 25, 139, 176, 267, 
326. 

Montgomery, Mr. T. C, of Western New York, 14, 16, 24, 
25, 33, 40, 55, 57, 71, 72, 73, 74, 97, 98, 102, 103, 108, 123, 139, 

143, 144, 145, 146. 156, 158, 160, 165, 166, 168, 174, 176, 177, 
181, 182, 183. 184, 185, 186, 199, 222, 315, 316, 324, 328, 338, 
349, 362. 368, 372, 373, 374. 375, 380, 381, 383, 386, 387, 388, 
392, 395, 396, 412, 414, 418, 419, 420, 421. 

Montreal, Lord Bishop of, 46, 112. 
Mudge, Mr. E. R., of Massachusetts, 273. 

Norton, d.d., the Rev. G. H., of Virginia, 61, 62, 77, 199, 240, 
241, 298. 

Otis, Mr. L. B., of Hlinois, 13. 14, 16, 19, 21. 22, 32. 38, 39, 53, 
59, 70, 74, 116, 167, 169, 188. 221, 260, 261, 272, 274, 275,276, 
291, 300, 352, 370, 396, 404, 405, 408, 411, 412, 413, 416, 421. 

Paret, d.d., the Rev. W., of Central Pennsylvania, 58, 70, 
73, 74, 80, 81, 87, 191, 216, 217, 222, 245, 251, 267, 279, 281, 

314, 345, 359, 372, 388, 391, 401, 411. 

Parker, Mr. R., of Virginia, 163, 174,175, 176, 223. 

Payne, d.d., the Rev. W., of Albany, 140. 

Peirce, Mr. P. R. L., of Michigan, 68, 96. 

Perkins, d.d., the Rev. E. T., of Kentucky, 21, 53, 95, 105, 
108, 112, 190, 222, 309, 328, 338, 351, 355. 

Pettis, the Rev. W. M., of Kentucky, 58. 

Pierrepont, Mr. H. E., of Long Island, 258. 

Pinckney, the Rev. C. C, of South Carolina, 111. 

Porter, the Rev. A. T., of South Carolina, 273. 

Potter, D.D., the Rev. H, C, Secretary of the House of Bish- 
ops, 422, 

President, The, 63, 66, 146, 154, 156. 
Quebec, Lord Bishop of, 47. 

Race, Mr. G. W., of Louisiana, 22, 28, 29, 50, 53, 57, 58, 72, 

144, 222, 223, 273, 277, 315, 328, 361, 392, 
Reynolds, d.d., the Rev. C, of Kansas, 97, 98. 
Richardson, the Rev. W. R., of Texas, 112. 
Rockwell, Mr. H. B., of Central Pennsylvania, 421. 
Rogers, the Rev. B. A., of Texas, 19, 26, 27, 37,56, 58, 59, 71, 

72, 74, 78, 87, 91, 105, 106, 108, 120, 144, l45, 146, 147, 148, 

149, loO, 151, 152, 153, 156, 159, 177, 200, 278, 280, 281, 291, 

312, 313, 315, 387, 402, 403, 
Rudder, d.d., the Rev. Wm., of Pennsylvania, 27, 81,109, 

131, 143, 144, 177, 178, 179, 199, 209, 212, 245, 256, 259, 267, 

268, 326, 335, 337, 355. 
Rugsles, Mr. S. B., of New York, 18, 21, 24, 25, 56, 57, 62, 67, 

68, 70, 110, 113, 280, 281, 310, 320, 321, 322, 324, 367, 407, 

419, 420, 421. 
Runcie, d.d., the Rev. J., of Missouri, 114. 

Schenck, d.d., the Rev. N. H., of Long Island, 15, 26, 27, 30, 
32, 53, 64, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81, 83, 88, 93, 108, 119, 123, 124, 
129, 171, 172, 173, 174, 190, 193, 194, 221, 222, 247, 251, 271, 
272, 301, 316, 323, 357, 364, 388, 396, 405, 406, 417, 418, 419, 
421. 

Secretary, The, 12, 118, 216. 

Shattuck, Mr. G. C, of Massachusetts, 79, 90, 107, 122, 140, 

213, 216, 221, 223, 251, 290, 300, 327, 328. 
Sheffey, Mr. H. W., of Virginia, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 

70, 71, 73. 74, 81, 90, 97. 98, 99, 100, 115, 152, 156, 166, 167, 

168, 250, 252, 254, 270, 271, 272, 291, 304, 313, 316, 319, 357, 

369. 370, 371, 373, 374, 380, 383, 388, 391. 



V 



Shelton, d.d., the Rev. W., of Western New York, 20, 36, 
335, 420. 

Shipman, the Rev. J. S., of Kentucky, 36, 89, 95, 109, 124, 

138, 168, 194, 218, 249,802, 335. 
Smedee, d.d., the Rev. A., of North Carolina, 394, 418. 
Smith, Bishop, 422 

Smith, Mr. J. M., of Western New York, 65, 218. 

Smith, Mr. J. J. P., of South Carolina, 97, 108, 143, 166, 173, 

242, 272, 355, 362, 367, 375, 376, 386, 393, 396, 404, 415, 421. 
Spalding, d d., the Rev. H. W., of Pittsburgh, 252, 275, 356. 
Stark, Mr. B., of Connecticut, 168, 254, 335, 336, 415. 
Stearns, d.d., the Rev. E J., of Easton, 33, 58, 63 64, 98 

108, 118, 119, 120, 179, ISO, 185, 186, 189, 192, 193, 396, 412. 
Stephens, Mr W. H., of Tennessee, 40, 275, 276, 277, 280,313, 

322, 338, 349. ' > i i . , 

Stevenson, Mr. J. W., of Kentucky, 1.5, 27, 28, 32, 33, 35, 37, 
52. 53, 66. 67, 74, 112, 120, 145, 146, 151, 154, ]56, 157, 158 
165, 193, 222, 247, 313, 327, 359, 361, 410, 414. 

Stone, the Rev, J. A., of Delaware, 39, 96, 144, 185, 186, 192, 
236. 1 1 . , , , , 

Stringfellow, d.d., the Rev. H., Jr., of Alabama, 173, 174, 
307, 309, 313. i > » 

Sullivan, d.d., the Rev. E., of Illinois, 87, 113, 293, 294. 

Taylor, Mr. T., of A^reinfa, 119, 153, 166, 169, 177, 186, 190, 
192, 216, 218, 263, 275, 305, 315, 324 353. 

Thompson. Mr. J., of Tennessee, 238, 247, 298, 304, 306, 313, 
314, 315. 1 ' » 1 . 1 

Tozer, Bishop, 48. 



Trimble, the Rev. R. W., of Arkansas, 90, 97, 360. 

Van Deusen, d.d., the Rev. E. M., of Central New York, 

74, 90, 94, 122, 126, 127, 128, 139, 218, 251. 
Vinton, d.d., the Rev. A. H., of Massachusetts, 69, 77, 143, 

145, 199, 264, 272, 290, 336, 340, 342, 344, 345, 358. 



Ward, the Rev. J. H., of Maine, 271, 297. 

Watson, D.D., the Rev. A. A., of North Carolina, 89, 104, 
105, 106, 172, 182, 183, 191, 199. 200, 250, 951, 265, 275, 
278, 298, 303, 304, 305, 352, 353, 368, 369, 375, 387, 392, 
393, 400, 401, 405, 406, 408, 411, 415, 416, 418, 419, 422. 

Waumdixun, H. W., of Niobrara, 67. 

Welsh, Mr. W., of Pennsylvania, 12, 17, 18, 26, 28, 3 5, 42, 
43. 55, 65, 67, 71, 74, 86, 94, 95, 111, 113, 118, 120, 121, 
122, 126. 130, 131, 132, 144, 145, 165, 166, 173, 174, 177, 
179, 180, 183, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 193, 216, 217, 218, 
249, 272, 274, 276, 280, 281, 282, 290, 291, 801, 305, 311, 
316, 318, 328, 334, 335, 336, 348, 3.51 353, 355, 362, 363, 
377, 378, 382, 384, 385, 392, 397, 406, 409, 414, 417, 418. 

Wilder, Mr. E. T.. of Minnesota, 18, 161, 164, 165, 200, 
295, 367, 374, 387, 388. 

Whittle, Mr. L. N., of Georgia, 31, 36, 39, 52, 53, 70, 120 
131, 151, 152, 156, 158, 159, 162, 198, 213, 252, 268, 277. 

Williams, d.d., the Rev. W. C.. of Georgia, 25, 26, 52, 53, 
n4, 63, 69, 73, 78, 118, 120. 176, 219, 299, 300, 307, 320, 336, 
352, 363, 368, 397, 400, 404, 414, 416. 

Wilson, D.D , the Rev. W. D., of Central New York, 04, 
160, 249, 284, 316, 337, 376, 377, 392. 

Woolworth, Mr. J. M,, of Nebraska, 161. 



INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 



PAGE 

Abakdonment or the Church 176, 250, 407, 422 

Absence of Clergymen.. 166, 416 

Alms-basin Presented to English Church 128 

Assessment on the Dioceses 107 

Baptism, Infant 172,285, 348, 351, 353 

Baptismal Office 69, 93, 275, 329, 336, 340 

Bishop. 

Officiating in other Dioceses 121 

Provisional 93 

Status of 123 

Status of Missionary 417 

Support of Missionary , 139 

Translation 194 

Elect of Illinois and Wisconsin. . 19, 55, 71, 74, 117, 137 

Elect, Testimonials of 

64, 98, 108, 165, 176, 179, 184, 192, 352, 466 

Testimonials of Bishop Adams 397 

Testimonials of Bishop Orrick.> 340 

I Testimonials of Bishops Garrett, Elliott, and 

Wingfield 301 

Missionary 164, 301, 416 

Election of Missionary 260, 279, 302, 368 

Election of Missionary, of China and Japan 172, 177, 328 

Election of Missionary, of California 254 

Election of Missionary, of Texas 254 

Election Missionary, of New Mexico & Arizona 391 
Book of Common Prater. 

Alteration of 71, 169, 358 

French Translation 320 

German Translation 376, 391 

Italian Translation 417 

Spanis'h Translation 284, 334, 392 

Standard 382 

Separation of Services 384 

Shortened Services 69, 165, 171, 182, 269. 359, 396 

Funeral Services 250 

Calendar, The 165, 166, 357 

Canadian Church 166 

Delegation to Synod 139, 377 

Intercommunion with. 50 

Kelations with 109, 177, 238 

Reception of Clergy 27 

Farewell of Metropolitan 112 

Centennial Celebration 189, 190, 222 

Chaplains of Theological Seminaries 176 

Christian Education 282 

Church Congress, English 18, 28, 61, 251 

Churches. 

Erection of 127 

Abroad 325 

Churchman. 

The Daily 397 

Debates 419 

Church Music 117, 118, 320, 352, 368, 382, 397 

Close op Business 422 

Committee on Canons. 

Organization of 54 

Reports of 

On Granting Seats to Secretary and Treas- 
urer 54 

On Memorials from California and Texas. . 59 

On Dissolution of Pastoral Connection 89 

On Organization of New Dioceses. ........ 89 

On Removal of Communicants 89 

On Testimonials of Bishops-elect 98 

On Organization of House of Deputies. .... 114 

On Omissions and Errors in Digest .... 115 

On Deputies from Missionary Jurisdictions 131 



page 

Committee on Canons {Continued). 

O a Parochial Teaching 252 

On Amending Canon 12 of Title 1 270 

On Change of Name 270 

On Organization of Standing Committees.. 270 

On Amending Canon 7 of Title 1 270 

On Testimonials of Bishops-elect 270 

On Pastoral Charge in Theological Semi- 270 

naries 270 

On Santee Indian Reservation 270 

On Amending Canon 4 of Title II 304 

On Amending Canon 5 of Title III 320 

On Inhibition of Accused Ministers 352 

On Status of Missionary Bishops 353 

On Candidates for Holy Orders 353 

On Certifying Changes in Canons 353 

On Missionary Bishops 368 

On Canon " Of the Presiding Bishop " 131 

On Amending Canon 13 of Title 1 131 

On Court of Appeals 131 

On Clergymen Charged with Offences 154 

On Ritual 155 

On Lay Readers 167 

On Amending Canon 10 of Title II 167 

On Theological Education 172 

On Infant Baptism 172 

On Shortened Services 182 

On Organization of House 188 

On Synods of Dioceses 199 

On State of the Church 200 

On Postures in Communion Service 221 

On Divorce 221 

On Abandonment of Communion by a 

Bishop 250 

On Abandonment by a Clergyman 250 

On Deaconesses 250 

Congregations of a Foreign Race 395,420 

Constitution. 

Amendments 63,269 

Article V 59 

" IV 276, 291 

" III ,174, 237, 358 

" II. and III 63 

Adoption of 90, 107 

Commission on 65, 358, 419 

Controversies op Parishes 303 

Convocation of Canterbury 189 

Court of Appeal... 56, 131, 133, 165, 169, 268, 358 

Cruelty to Animals Ill 

Deaconesses, Order of Ill, 250, 328, 408 

Diocesan Synods 94, 406, 409, 417 

Dissolution of Pastoral Connection 59, 89, 104, 

108, 132, 304, 340, 392, 398 

EucHARisTic Adoration 61, 172, 250, 403 

Examination for Deacon's Orders 96 

Force of Joint Resolutions 329, 357, 382 

Foreign Visitors 20, 36 

Reception of 45 

Farewell to 91 

Form op Parochial Report 220 

General Theological Seminary.93, 190, 249, 334, 348, 382 

Goodwin, The Rev. Dr.'s, Illness 335 

Haight, The Rev. Dr 94 

history op the Church 319 

House op Bishops, Messages prom. 

Notification of Organization 13 

Greeting from English Church Congress 18 

Joint Committee on English Church Congress . . 28 



vii 



PAGE 



HousB OP Bishops, Messages prom {Contintied). 

In tercommiiniou with Canada 50 

Committee to wait upon Lord Bp. of Lichfield. . 59 
Consenting to Division of Diocese of New 

Jersey 59 

Non-concurring in appointing Joint Committee 

on Hymnal 67 

Renumbering Canons 68 

Amending Canon 13 of Title VII 68 

Consenting to Division of Michigan 68 

Consenting to Division of Ohio 68 

Amending Canon 12 of Title 1 106 

Amending Canon 4 of Title I .- 106 

Committee to nominate Board of Missions 106 

Joint Committee on Standard Prayer Book 113 

Amending Canon 13 of Title 1 113 

Amending Canon 2 of Title 1 114 

Amending Canon 6 of Title HE 114 

Committees on Canons to sit as Joint Com 114 

Canadian Relations 114 

Canon of Divorce 114 

Report of Trustees Widows and Orphans Fund 116 

On Church Music 117 

Reduction of Printed Journal 117 

Returning Messages 131 

Trustees Missionary Bishops' Fund 131 

On Dissolution of Pastoral Connection 132 

Transferring Santee Reservation 132 

The Hymnal... 132 

Court of Appeals 133 

Consenting to Division of Texas 135 

Concurring in Board of Missions 154 

Amending Canon 5 of Title HE 154 

Japan and China 164 

Requesting Committee of Conference 177 

Abandoning the Communion . .* 187 

Inhibition of Clergymen 187 

Amending Canon 13 of Title 1 188 

Discipline of Communicants 200 

Missionary Districts in Texas 200 

Naming Joint Committee 216 

Relations with Canadian Church 236 

Missionary Districts in California 236 

Discipline of Communicants 236 

Organization of the House 236 

Relief for Presiding Bishop 248 

Missionary Bishop for Texas 254 

Missionary Bishop for California, 254 

Standing Committee for Foreign Churches 270 

Committee on Final Adjournment 270 

Committee on Religious Reform Abroad 272 

Standing Committee on Indian Affairs — . 275 

Concurring in Boston for next meeting 279 

Altering Article IV. of Constitution 291 

Lectionary for Lent 300 

Consenting to Division of Wisconsin 301 

The Hymnal 301 

Canon on Ritual. 304 

Organization ol the Hotise 304 

Committee on Hymnal 311 

Board of Missions 316 

On the Hymnal 316 

Committee of Conference 316 

Concurrence in Messages 316 

Centennial 319 

Trustees of Relief Fund 320 

Withdrawing nomination of Rev. Mr. Orrick. . 328 

The New Hymnal 328 

Order of Deaconesses 328 

Force of Joint Resolutions 329 

Concurrence in Messages 348 

General Theological Seminary 348 

Canon on Ritual 348 

Church Music 352 

Provisions for the Episcopate 352 

Missionary Districts 352 

Russo-Greek Church 376 

Committee on General Theological Seminary. . 382 

Committee on Ecclesiastical Relations 382 

Standard Prayer Book 382 

Force of Joint Resolutions 382 

Commission ©n General Theological Seminary. 382 

Committee on Final Adjournment 382 

Trustees of General Theological Seminary 382 

Standard Bible 382 

Church Music 382 

I^ectionary for Lent 387 



PAGE 

House op Bishops, Messages prom {Continued). 



Time of Final Adjournment 387 

German Prayer Book 391 

Bishop of New Mexico and Arizona 391 

Concurrence in Messages 395 

Congregations of a Foreign Race 395 

Shortened Fonns of Prayer 396 

Amendment to Article 8 of the Constitution. . . 396 

Closing Services 406 

Clergymen chargeable with Misdemeanor 406 

Committee Service 406 

Information asked 406 

Synods of Dioceses 417 

Title of House of Deputies 417 

Italian Prayer Book 417 

Commission on the Constitution 419 

Asking Conference 421 

Non-concurrence in Messages 421 

Abandonment of the Communion 422 

Concurrence in Me&sages 422 

House of Deputies. 

Election of President * 12 

" Secretary 13 

Appointment of Assistant-Secretary 18 

Appointment of Standing Committees 19, 54 

Rules of Order 18, 21, 28, 37, 51 

Appointment of 2d and 3d- Assistant-Secre- 
taries 36 

Reception of Foreign Visitors 45 

Appointment of Joint Committee on Hymnal.. 62 

Supplementary Delegates 89, 124, 176, 194, 268, 358 

Report of Treasurer 89 

Election of Treasurer 90 

Farewell to Enslish Visitors 91 

Farewell to Canadian Metropolitan 112 

Secret Session 112,114, 116, 124, 132 

Night Sessions 118 

Report of Committee on Representation 121 

Deceased Members 124, 141 

Statement of Treasm'er 170 

Representation of Dioceses 95.168 

Reduction of Number of Deputies 62, 121, 320 

Place of Ne^t Session, 174, 177, 191, 194, 215, 272, 279 

Change of Name 165, 412, 417 

Final Adjournment 420 

Sessions of 

First Day 9 

Second Day 18 

Third Day 36 

Fourth Day 54 

Fifth Day 65 

Sixth Day 88 

Seventh Day 109 

Eighth Day 113 

Ninth Day 114 

Tenth Day " 116 

Eleventh Day " us 

Twelfth Day 124 

Thirteenth Day 132 

Fourteenth Day ' 132 

Fifteenth Day 138 

Sixteenth Day * 168 

Seventeenth Day ige 

Eighteenth Day \ 215 

Nineteenth Day 249 

Twentieth Day 279 

Twenty-First Day 301 

Twenty- Second Day 334 - 

Twenty-Third Day 368 

Twenty-Fourth Day ] 397 

Hymnal, The 

Memorial 27 

Joint Committee 62 

Committee on 67 

Discussion on 64, 132, 141, 165,'254,"26d,' 271, 

301, 311, 316, 328, 335, 357, 382 

Indiak Appairs 186, 275, 302 

Santee Reservation 132,270 

Journals. 

Republication of Early 303 

Reduction of Printed 117, 121, 140, 377 

Lambeth CoNPERENCB 71, 78 

Lay Readers .'....* . 109,'l67 

L?CTiONARY, The New '393 

Leave op Absence, 21, 90, 117, 138, 168, 218, 249,' 302, 335 

Lessons por Lent 78, 92, 133, 277, 300, 305, 368, 389 

Letters prom the Eastern Church 329 



viii 



PAGE 

Lichfield, Lord Bishop of. 

Opening Sermon 9 

Message in regard to 59 

McIlvaine, Death op Bishop 128 

Memorials Presented. 

Fr m Wisconsin, concerning Nicene Creed 19 

From California, for Establishment of Mission- 
ary Jurisdiction 19 

From Texas, for Division of Diocese 26 

From Pennsylvania, regarding Hymnal 27 

From Mississippi, concerning Nicene Creed. . . 56 

From Other Dioceses, on Same Subject 56 

From Wisconsin, for Division of Diocese 59 

From Virginia, on Ritual Uniformity 61 

From Massachusetts, concerning Baptismal 

Service , 69 

From Arkansas, on Ritual ■. 90 

From New Jersey, on Ritual 92 

From Kansas, on Ritualism 97 

From Connecticut, concerning Nicene Creed. . . Ill 

From Texas, on Hj-^mual 112 

From Same, on Court of Appeal 112 

From Kentucky, on Ritual Uniformity 112 

From Easton, concerning Nicene Creed 112 

From Kentucky, on Ritual 126 

Prom Tennessee, for Amendment of Article 5 

of the Constitution 127 

From New York, on Ritual 141 

New York Historical Society 117 

Nicene Creed, The 56, 124, 276 

Organizations Affected by Chicago Firs 56 

Papers in Regard to Dr. Seymour 216 

Pastoral Letter 419, 423 

Pointing of the Psalter 64, 140, 378 

Prayer for Rulers 173 

For authorities ' 404 

Provincial System 65, 252, 363 

Provision for the Episcopate 352 

Removal of Communicants 62, 89, 107 

Removal of Ministers 168 

Residence of Theological Professors 418 

Resolutions Adopted. 

On Appointment of Standing Committees 16 

Of Compliment to the Lord Bishop of Lichfield 

and others 20 

On Admissions to the Floor 20 

On Lambeth Conference 71-88 

Of Sympathy with Dr. Haight 94 

Appointing Rev. C. R. Hale on Joint Commit- 
tee on Standard Prayer Book 100 

To pay $500 toward expenses Presiding Bishop 107 

To pay Secretaries' Salaries 107 

To assess Dioceses 107 

Thanks to Trinity Church 107 

Consenting to Division of Ohio 116 

Consenting to Division of Michigan 117, 131 

Confirming Trustees of Miss. Bishops's Fund. . 122 

Electing Board of Missions 137 

On Discipline of Communicants 166 

Numbering of Canons 166 

Clerical change in Canon 10 of Title II 167 

On reference of Messages 168 

Limiting debate to thirty minutes 176 

Changing hour of meeting 177 

Relations with Canada 177 

Appointing Committee on Religious Reform 

abroad 182 

On Organization of House 189 

On Relief for Presiding Bishop 194 



PAGE 

Resolutions Adopted (Continued). 

On Ritual 248 

Of acknowledgment to Canon of Ely 252 

On transfer of Santee Reservation 270 

Adopting Boston for next meeting 274 

Amending Canon 13 of Title 1 276 

On Nicene Creed 276 

Continuing Joint Com. on Christian Education 284 
C' ntinuing Committee on Spanish Prayer Book 284 
Discharging Committee ou Reprint of Early 

Journals 303 

Thanks to Trinity and Holy Trinity Churches. . 305 

OntheHymiial 316 

Amending Article 5 of the Constitution 319 

Complying with request of Centennial Com 320 

Concerning organization of Churches abroad.. 320 

Adopting Canon " Of Church Music " 320 

Amending Article 5 of the Constitution 327 

Paying Presiding Bishop $250 per year 323 

On the Hymnal 335 

Commission for General Theological Seminary. 348 

Adopting Canon on Ritual 350 

Providing Shortened Form of Prayer 363 

On Russo-Greek Church 376 

Printing Canon in the Hymnal 383 

Fixing Time of Final Adjournment 387 

On tte Lectionary 397 

Of Thanks to M. H. Mallory & Co 397 

Concerning Abandonment by a Bishop 408 

Amending Canon 6 of Title II 408 

Changing Title of the House 412 

Amending Canon 1 of Title III 416 

Of Thanks to the President 417 

Appointing Committee on Italian Prayer Book. 417 

Of Thanks to the Secretary 417 

Of Thanks to the Rev. Dr. Mead 417 

Of Thanks to the Postmaster 419 

Ordering bound copies of Debates 419 

Of Thanks to Assistant Secretaries 421 

Amending Canon 2 of Title II 422 

Ritualism.... 60, 61, 92, 97, 141, 155, 166, 174, 194, 20o, 
223 , 237, 251, 252, 270, 275, 304, 311, 316, 

336, 348, 349. 

Remarks of the Rev. Dr. Leeds on 331 

Rubrical Revision 291, 384. 387 

Rules of Order 13, 16, 21, 28, 37, 51 

Proposed Committee on 107 

Amendment of 122 

Committee on 167 

Russo-Greek Committee 303,376 

Secretary. 

Election of 13 

Assistants 16, 18, 36, 132 

And Treasurer, Privileges of 28 

Salary of 107 

Sentences of Suspension 109 

Standard Bible 368, 382 

State of Business 397 

State of the Church, 122, 200, 218, 404 

Students in Seminakies 416 

Synods of Dioceses 199,249 

Thanks. 

To Trinity Church 107 

Resolution of 305 

To Secretary Perry 417 

To Rev. Dr. Mead 4l7 

To Postmaster and Others 419 

To Assistant-Secretary 421 

Unfinished Business 140 



i 



DEBATES 



HOUSE OF DEPUTIES 



NEW YORK, 1874. 



FIRST day's proceedings. 

New York, Wednesday, October 7. 

The first Wednesday in October, being the day 
designated by the Constitution of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America 
for holding a Greneral Convention, the Bishops and 
the Deputies-elect assembled, agreeably to the ap- 
pointment of the last General Convention, in this 
city, in St, John's Chapel, Trinity Parish. 

Processional Hymn, 202, Hymnal — " The Church's 
one foundation." 

Morning Prayer was begun by the Rev. William 
Stevens Perry, d.d., Secretary of the last House of 
Deputies. 

Venite. 

The Eighth Selection of Psalms was read by the 
Rev. Edward James Edwards, Vicar of Trentham, 
Diocese of Lichfield, England. 

The First Lesson (Isaiah Lx.) was read by the Very 
Rev. Lewis P. W. Balch, d.d., Ai'chdeacon of Huron. 

Te Deum. 

The Second Lesson (John xvi. ) was read by the 
Rev. J. EUegood, m.a.. Canon of Montreal. 

Jiibilate. 

The Creed and Prayers to the Litany were said 
by the Rev. W. Q. Ketchum, d.d., Honorary Canon 
of Fredericton, New Brunswick. 

The Litany was read by the Rev. Heni'y C. Potter, 
D.D., Secretary of the House of Bishops. 
_ Hymn 25, Prayer-Book, "I love Thy Kingdom, 
Lord." 

The Communion Service was begun by the Right 
Rev. Ashton Oxenden, d.d.. Bishop of Montreal 
and Metropolitan of Canada. 

The Epistle was read by the Right Rev. William 
R, Whittingham, d.d., ll.d.. Bishop of Maryland. 

The Gospel was read by the Right Rev. Reginald 
Courtenay, d.d.. Bishop of Kingston, Canada. 

Anthem, Mendelssohn's Elijah : " If with all your 
hearts you truly seek Him," by Rev. W. H. Cook. 

The Sei-mon was delivered by the Right Rev. 
George Augustus Selwyn, d.d., d.c.l.. Lord Bishop 
of Lichfield, England. 



SERMON. 
Acts XV. 28. 
It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us : 

iSo^ev Tw IIveu/aaTi. toj 'Ayiw kol i]ixlv. 

Confer. Acts xv. 25.— It seemed good unto us, being 
assembled with one accord : 

eSo^ev rjfJ-tv vei/Ojuefoi? oixoOvijlo.Sov. 

Acts XV. 22.— Then pleased it the apostles and elders, 
with the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own 
company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas : 

Tore iSo^e rot? aVocTToAois /cat tois Trpea-BvTepoL? avv oArj rij 
eKK\rj<Tiq. ,€K\e^aiJ.evov<; ai'Bpag avrCov nefJuj/aL et? 'Avrto^eiav. 

Acts XV. 2. — When therefore Paul and Barnabas had 
no small dissension and disputation with them. 
V. 2. — Dissension disputation disputing. 

crrdcri? ^r/rrjais V. 7, (TV^rjTrjaL<; 

V. 4.— They were received of the church and of the 
apostles and elders : . 

napeSexOr]<Ta.v iinb rrjs e/c/cArjat'a? Koi Twv anoaToXoiV kol tuip 
Tzpea^vTepoiv. 

V. 6.— The apostles and elders came together for to 
consider of this matter. 

V. 23.— The apostles and elders and brethren send 
greeting: 

oi aTTOCTToAot /cat ot TrpecrjSvTepot /cat ot aSeAc^iot, rots /caret rrjv 
'AvTtoxetav /cat Svpt'av /cat KiAt/ctav aSeAc^ots rot? €| eOviov, 
Xatpetv. 

Behold, brethren, a Synod in the highest sense : 
"It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us"— 
God the Holy Ghost uniting believers with Himself 
by the spirit of counsel. St. Paul tells us in i Cor. 
iii. 9, that we are laborers together with God, and 
he adds : "Ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's 
building." The world is the field in which God 
works with us : He as the Lord of the harvest ; we 
as the laborers. The Church is the building grow- 
ing into a holy temple (Ephes. ii. 21), in which God 
is the master builder, and we the workmen. As 
Christ is both the priest and the sacrifice, so He is 
both the master builder and the chief corner-stone. 
And we, in like manner, are both the workmen and 
the stones— workmen to lay ourselves as living 
stones upon the one foundation, which is Christ 
alone, in whom we are builded together for an 
habitation of God through the Spirit (Ephes. ii. 22). 
In this character of "laborers together with God," 



10 



Paul and Barnabas went up to Jeinisalem, and there 
declared to the Church and to the Apostles and 
eldei-s all things that God had done with them 
(Acts XV. 4). So also at Antioch they rehearsed all 
that God had done with them (Acts xiv. 27). The 
final words of St. Mark's Gospel are thus seen in 
their course of fulfilment: "They," that is, the 
Apostles, "went forth and preached everywhere, 
the Lord working- with them" (Mark xv. 20). 

United work is the result of united counsel. 
There must be one mind before there can be one 
work. When the builders of Babel could not 
imderstand one another's speech, they left off to 
build the city (Gen. xi. 8). Not so when the Lord 
builds the house. The labor will not be lost of them 
that build it (Psalm cxxvii. 1). As the master builder 
God lays the foundation, and gives grace to them 
that build upon it (1 Cor. iii. 10). Many names 
may be given to that special grace. It may be 
called imity or the spirit of counsel, but its special 
name is edification (1 Cor. xiv. 26). Let all things 
be done unto edifying. 

The rule by which we work is the mind of the 
Master-builder. The plumb-hne (Amos vii. 7), the 
measuring-reed (Ezekiel iv. 3), and the square are 
the Lord's. The pattern of things on earth was first 
conceived in heaven. The foundation on which we 
build was laid by the foreknowledge of God. He 
that built all things is God (Heb. iii. 4). 

It was no part of the creed of the Apostolic 
Church that every man might build upon this foun- 
dation as he pleased. It was not enough to say, " I 
build upon the foundation of Christ whether he 
built gold, silver, and precious stones, or wood, hay, 
and stubble (1 Cor. iii. 12). A plain waraing was 
given : " Let every man take heed how he buildeth 
thereupon," for "the fire shall try every man's 
work of what sort it is (ib. iii. 13). ^ There" was no 
place ^DT rival bands of builders. This was the 
earnest exhortation of St. Paul to the Corinthians 
(i. 10), when he heard that there were contentions 
among them : 

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same 
thing, and that there be no divisions among you : 
but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same 
mind and in the same judgment." 

No man had a better right to assert an opinion of 
his own than St. Paul. He had been called, from his 
mother's womb ; he had seen the Lord Jesus Christ ; 
he had heard the voice of the Lord speaking to him 
from heaven ; he had been caught up into the third 
heaven to hear unspeakable words. If he had 
claim.ed to the uttermost the right of private judg- 
ment and rejected all counsel of his brethren, 
he at least, if any man, might have been ex- 
cused. But this was not the mind of the Lord Jesus 
as the Lord Himself had revealed it to him ; this was 
not the way along which the Holy Ghost led him; 
this was not the lesson which he learned and prac- 
tised at the Synod of the Apostles and Elders at Je- 
rusalem; this was not the example which he saw 
and followed when he was received, late in the day, 
as one bom out of due time, into that church in 
which the multitude of them that believed were of 
one heart and one soul (Acts iv. 32). The thought 
was thus deeply rooted in the Apostle's mind, that 
"God is not a God of confusion, but of peace" (1 
Cor. xiv. 33). 

The right of private judgment was not abolished, 
but placed under due control. Each believer might 
have his own special gifts by which one man would 
differ from another ; to one, the word of wisdom ; to 
another, the word of knowledge ; to another, faith ; 
to another, the gifts of heahng ; to another, the work- 
ing of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, 
discerning of , spirits ; to another, divers kinds of 
tongues ; to another, the interpretation of tongues : 



all these were the work of that one and self -same 
Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he would. 
These special gifts, hke the powers of foot and head 
and eye, were for the good of the whole body. 
There was to be no schism in the body ; but all the 
members were to have the same care one for anoth- 
er. Each member of Christ was free to covet earn- 
estly the best gifts ; to pray for more knowledge and 
more faith, and more inward and spiritual life, 
yet all these would be of no avail, without that more 
excellent way of charity, that bond of perfectness, 
which unites all the several members in the one body. 

Private judgment and free expression of opinion 
were not forbidden in that Synod of Jerusalem. 
What is a Synod but an assemljly of men of many 
minds, and what would be the value of a Synod if 
there were not freedom of speech The Apostohc 
Church was not exempt from differences of opin- 
ion; it was not a Church bound to accept as infalli- 
ble the opinions of one man. Grecians were free to 
murmur against the Hebrews, that tlieir widows 
were neglected in the daily ministration. The con- 
verts to the circumcision were free to contend with 
St. Peter, because he went in to men uncircumcised 
and did eat with them ; others of the converted Jews, 
in their zeal for the law, taught the brethren, Except 
ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye 
cannot be saved. St. Paul did not fear to withstand 
St. Peter on the same ground, face to the face, be- 
cause he was to be blamed ; there was no small dis- 
sension and disputation upon the point at Antioch ; 
much disputing on the same question at Jerusalem ; 
certain of the sect of Pharisees which believed 
gave their opinion that it was needful to circumcise 
them, and to command them to keep the law. Pe- 
ter, Paul, Barnabas, took the contrary side; and 
St. James, as president, summed up the debate 
and put the question to the vote ; and then by the 
united voice of Apostles, Elders, and brethren, the 
decree was given, and the encyclical letter written 
with the solemn preamble : 

" It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." 

Can we fail to learn from this inspired history 
what the right of Private Judgment really means i 
It means the unfettered right of every mar to have 
his own opinions and to express them freely, but to 
be ready to give way to the opinion of his brethren, 
and to accept their decision, as if it were his own. 
It does not mean the audacious assertion of personal 
infallibility : it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and 
to me : but it does mean that to every believer a 
power is given, to some more, and to others less, to 
search the Holy Scriptm^es ; to pray for the guidance 
of the Spirit ; to seek the mind of Christ ; to com- 
pare spiritual things with spiritual ; to be fully per- 
suaded in his own mind ; and yet withal to know 
himself to be but man, finite, fallible man, still far 
from perfection, still an Apostle who with all his 
gifts may require to be taught the way of God 
more perfectly, still a Peter w^ho may deserve to be 
withstood. All this his own private judgment, 
rightly used, will teach him. I cannot be as God, 
knowing all things ; ca,n I assume to myself the 
grace of infallibility, which I deny to the head of 
two-thirds of Christendom, and deny it because he, 
as the successor of St. Peter, claims a power which 
St. Peter himself did not possess : are the gifts of 
the Holy Ghost, which I have received, so much 
more abundant as that I should be more certain 
of freedom from all error than they, who heard the 
words of Him who spake as never man spake ; and 
upon whom the Ghost came down on the day of Pen- 
tecost to teach them all things, and to guide them 
into all truth ? And when the holy and humble 
man of heart goes, in this frame of mind, into the 
Synod of his Church, and sees Bishops, Priests, and 
brethren assembled there "with one accord" (Acts 
XV. 25) in the name of the Blessed Trinity ; when 



11 



solemn prayer has been offered up for the outpour- 
ing of the Holy Ghost, not upon one but upon all ; 
when the Holy Communion of the body and blood 
of Christ has united all the members in the one body 
of their Lord, what will be the word of counsel 
which the Private Judgment of each member in par- 
ticular ^vill suggest to his mind ? Will it not take 
its form in thoughts like these : What am I, in the 
midst of these gifted men ^ If I have searched the 
Scriptures, so have they. If I have prayed for the 
guidance of the Spirit, so have they. If I have 
walked with God, much more have they. I am the 
least of all these holy men. There are men here at 
whose feet I am not worthy to sit. I thank God 
that I am not left to trust to the conclusions of my 
own deceitful heart, for surely in this multitude of 
counsellors there is greater safety. 

True it is, that times have been, and may be again, 
when one man may stand alone in the midst of an 
apostate world. Abraham stood alone when he in- 
terceded with God. Athanasius stood alone against 
a world of heresy. Even in heaven it may be tnie, 
as the poet has feigned, that some seraph Abdiel 
"was faithful foimd ; 
Among the faithless, faithful only he. " 

But of all the spirits that require to be tried 
whether they be of God, this spirit of championshii) 
needs the greatest caution. It was no tme assump- 
tion which made Elijah say, " I, even I only, am 
left " (1 Kings xix. 10). 

But what saith the answer of God unto him (Ro- 
mans xi. 14): "I have reserved to myself seven 
thousand men which have not bowed the knee to 
Baal." 

What greater temptation can there be to pride 
than for a man to believe himself to be a defender 
of the faith when he stands up before his brethren 
as the champion of some peculiar opinion? It is 
thus that the unity of the Church is rent, when men 
say, " I am of Paul," and " I of Apollos," and " I of 
Cephas," and "I of Luther," and "I of Calvin," 
and " I of Wesley," and " I of Simeon," and "I of 
Pusey. " But what saith the Holy Ghost 'i 

"Is Christ divided ?" 

As children who have sailed their boats in the 
pond in their father's garden are filled with aston- 
ishment when they go down to the sea in ships and 
there see the works of the Lord and His wonders in 
the deep, so the man who has lived in the narrow 

Erecincts of his own mind, and measures all tilings 
y his own standard of thought, is amazed to find 
how little he really knows when he comes into the 
assembly of men older, wiser, more holy, and higher 
in station than himself. His feelings will be 
those described by Isaiah (Lx. 5) : " Thine heart shall 
fear and be enlarged, because the abundance of the 
sea shall be converted unto thee. " He is as one that 
has launched out into the deep. He had fished in 
shallow waters ; now he lets down his net into a sea 
that cannot be fathomed. How partial now seem 
those which he called his views ; how imperfect that 
which he called his private judgment ; the vessels 
which he drew with did not reach to the depth of 
Christ's love ; his mete-yard could not comprehend 
that love, the measure whereof is longer than the 
earth and broader than the sea (»Tob xi. 9). But now 
he comes to his Synod, to learn the way of God more , 

Eerf ectly, to seek the mind of Christ by counsel with 
is brethren ; to pray with them for the knowledge of I 
that fulness of the Saviour's love which passeth 
knowledge untU it be comprehended with all his 
saints (Ephes. iii. 19). The soul escapes as from a ' 
prison in which a single ray shone upon it through a 
narrow chink, true light, it may have been, from the 
one true and only Sun, but still a single ray ; but 
now in the fellowship of kindred souls, in the hal- 
lowed interchange of spiritual counsel, in united j 



] prayer, in frequent communion, the light shines 
i upon him from every side mirrored upon the minds 
i of all with whom he walks as friends in the house 
of God. Feelings unknown before, thoughts which 
1 never came into his mind, new views of doctrines, 
! new applications of Holy Scripture, a wider range 
\ of spiritual sight — these are the ever growing and 
ripening fruits of a life of sympathy and commun- 
ion with those whom God has united together in the 
mystical body of his blessed Son. The whole char- 
acter of liis mind is changed. He has come like a 
hermit out of his cell to impart to his brethren the 
j answers which God has given to Ms lonely prayers, 
and to receive back again from them an hundi'ed- 
fold the gifts of grace and visions of glory which 
I have been shed abundantly upon the Synod assem- 
j bled with one heart to pray for the outpouring of 
j the Holy Ghost. The conceit of private judgment 
is swallowed up in the full assurance of the con- 
j viction which has been brought home to the minds 
; of all. The words once so pleasant and so custom- 

his is my view : 
j — give place to the soul-sustaining decision, which 
! resolves all doubts, appeases all differences, and edi- 
i fies the body of Christ (Ephes. iv.l2) : 

" It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." 
I How wiU the promise be fulfilled, that the Holy 
i Spirit will teach us all things, and bring all things 
\ to our remem]prance, whatsoever Christ has said 
I unto us (John xiv. 26). How will the Spirit of Truth 
i guide us into all truth ? (John xvi.13.) Ai*e wemak- 
' ing progress towards that end ? We are compelled 
j to answer that we are not advancing. This state of 
I rehgious strife in which we live cannot be the mind 
I of Christ, the Prince of Peace. It is not thus that 
j we can keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of 
I peace. What one asserts and another denies can- 
1 not be the teaching of the spirit of truth. This is 
not the way by which we shall be guided to the 
: knowledge of all tnith. The truth of God must be 
\ one. There can be no more contention, when we 
have once found the truth. It is no use to say that 
we agree in the essentials of the truth. So much 
the more grievous is it that we should quarrel about 
I trifies. But trifles they are not. Every particle of 
: the truth of God is precious. It must be searched 
1 out like the one grain of gold hidden in a bucketful 
! of sand. It is a-U tnith that we seek, and not par- 
tial truth ; truth in doctrine, truth in prayer, truth 
in every motive, truth in every action of the Chris- 
tian life. There must be no compromise with truth; 
no saying that one opinion or one nile of life is as 
good as another. If I differ from a fellow-Christian 
in any single point however small of Christian doc- 
trine " or practice, I ought not to rest until I have 
found out whether he be wrong or I. 

This is what the world calls bigotry, and why? 
Because the world cares nothing for the truth. It 
prefei's the belief that every man shall be saved 
by the law or sect which he professes, to the doctrine 
that it is only the name of Jesus Christ whereby 
men must be saved. We, on the contrary, can never 
cease to pray that we all perfectly know the Lord 
Jesus Christ to be the way, the truth, and the life. 
What they despise as dogma is that which we seek 
as truth. We contend earnestly for the faith which 
was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). 

How must we contend? Not with strife and ill-will, 
but with mutual forbearance. Stormy debate and 
angry recrimination are the bane and the disgrace of 
the Synods of the Church. Leave them to the 
world to which they belong, though even in the 
civil assemblies it is an unseemly thing that they 
who profess to govern others should be unable to 
control themselves. But in a Christian Synod, in 
which we pray for the presence of the Holy Ghost, 
the tone must be, not as of those who contend for 



12 



victory, but of those who seek for truth. Hush ! 
broilers, hush! the Dove has hghted in the midst: 
take heed lest she again unfold her wings, and flee 
away to be at peace. 

That Holy Spirit who spake by the Prophets and 
Evangelists comes in answer to the prayers of the 
faithful, to guide them to the true interpretation 
of that Word of life, which, though it be plain to the 
simple, yet contains hard sayings which "they that 
are unlearned and unstable wrest to their own 
destruction" (2 Peter iii. 16). Was there ever 
any heretic who did not profess to base 
his doctrines, however erroneous, upon the 
letter of Holy Scripture ? The true office, then, 
of the Synods and Conventions of the Church is to 
pray for the grace of the Holy Spirit to enable them 
to search the deep things of God. We have the 
Holy Bible in our hands ; each one of us is free to 
read ; free to seek the promised blessing, that they 
who search the Scriptures shall find ; but still the 
fact remains, that whether it be from prejudice, or 
self-deceit, or defect of pra;y'er, the readers of the 
same Word differ in opinion widely one from 
another. Can all be right ? or, according to the cur- 
rent phrase, shall all agree to differ ? Oh ! no. It is 
truth that we seek. To acquiesce in error is to give 
up the search after truth. Grod has set his bow in 
the cloud to teach us that the refracted rays of many 
colors must be made to converge again. Men of 
narrow opinions and partial views _ must blend to- 
gether in one those partial ghmpses of the truth 
which each has mistaken for the whole. When 
party spirit, like the dark cloud, shall have passed 
away, and with it the many colored rays of reli- 
gious opinions ; then will truth of doctrine shine 
forth, like the face of our transfigured Lord, shining 
as the sun, and like His raiment white as the 
light. 

That focus of the scattered rays of light has ever 
been in the Holy Synods of the Church. How glo- 
rious were those days in which the Holy Ghost 
poured down the spirit of counsel upon an undivided 
Christendom. Think what we, as descended from 
Gentile forefathers, owe to the Apostles, Elders, and 
brethren, for that decree, which seemed good to the 
Holy Ghost and to them : 

"Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted re- 
pentance unto life. " In consequence of that decree, 
we have been brought out of darkness and error to 
the clear hght and true knowledge of God and of 
His Son Jesus Christ. 

Think again what we owe to the Council of Mcea, 
where all the diverging questions, " What think ye 
of Christ ?" were gathered into one by the voice of 
the Holy Ghost speaking through the Bishops of the 
Universal Church : 

"We beheve in one Lord Jesus Christ, God of 
God, Light of Light." 

Was the Spirit lost when the Churches of the East 
and West were rent asunder ? Oh ! no. The Lord 
has said that " He will be with His Church alway." 
True it is that a divided Christendom cannot pray 
for the gifts of the Holy Ghost with the same full 
assurance as if every prayer went up to heaven from 
a multitude of believers still of one heart and one 
soul. But the privilege which belongs to united 
prayer may stiU be exercised, though with abated 
confidence, by a Church like ours, which it has 
pleased God to extend far and wide over the face of 
the earth and among the islands of the sea. Her 
prayers never cease day nor night. Her bishoprics 
are one hundred and sixty, I will not say that a 
Church like ours can decide questions of doctrine 
with full authority like that of the undivided Church ; 
but until the time shall come, in the counsels of God, 
for that reunion of Christendom for whicli we de- 
voutly pray, the prayers of such a branch of the 
Church as ours cannot fail to procure for us a large 



' measure of the gifts of the Spirit, if only we agree 
together as to what we shall ask of the Father. The 

j same desire for unity which brings you together in 
your General Convention will much more lead us 
to look forward to another meeting of the Lambeth 
Conference, to seek more carefully for the mind of 
Jesus, and to pray more earnestly for the Holy 
Ghost to heal the divisions of our Church. 

1 " Let us, therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus 

I minded ; and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, 
God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, 
whereto we have already attained, let us walk by 

i the same rule, let us mind the same thing. 

The offertory was received by the Right Rev, 
Alfred Lee, d.d.. Bishop of Delaware. 

The Prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church 
Militant was said by the Right Rev. Alfred Lee, 
D.D., Bishop of Delaware. 

The Major Exhortation was said by the Right 
Rev, William M. Green, d.d., Bishop of Mississippi. 

The Minor Exhortation was said by the Right 
I Rev. Thomas Atkinson, d.d., ll.d.. Bishop of North 
Carolina. 

The Confession was said and the service was con- 
tinued by the Right Rev. Horatio Potter, d.d., 
I LL.D., D.C.L., Bishop of New York. 

The Trisagion and Sanctus were sung by Rev, W, 
! H. Cooke, 

The Right Rev. B. Bosworth Smith, d.d., ll.d., 
Bishop of Kentucky, and presiding in the House of 
Bishops, then proceeded with the Prayer of Humble 
Access, Consecration, and Administration of the 
Holy Communion. 

The Post Communion was said by the Right Rev. 
Thomas M. Clark, d.d,, ll.d,, Bishop of Rhode 
Island. 

Gloria in Excelsis. 
The Benediction was pronounced by the Right 
Rev. Samuel A. McCoskry, d.d., d.cl,, Bishop of 
Michigan, 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF DEPUTIES. 

The members of the House of Bishops having re- 
tired to the rooms assigned them in the church 
building. 

The Rev. WILLIAM STEVENS PERRY, d.d.. 
Secretary of the last House, called the House of 
Deputies to order. 

Each Diocese was called in alphabetical order, 
and the Deputies elected therefrom presented their 
testimonials. 

The SECRETARY then called the roll, and the 
Deputies present answered to their names. 

The SECRETARY (on the conclusion of the 
roll-call). I hereby declare that the Church is re- 
presented by a majority of dioceses, agreeably to 
Article I. of the Constitution of the Church. 

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut, I move 
that we proceed to elect a President, 
The motion was agreed to. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD. I now nominate the Rev. 
James Craik, d.d,, of Kentucky, President of the 
last House, to be President of this present House of 
Deputies of this General Convention. 

The SECRETARY. The Rev. Dr. Craik is nomi- 
nated. Are there any other nominations 'i 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that the 
balloting be dispensed with, there being no other 
nominations. 

The motion was agreed to unanimously. 

The SECRETARY. The question now is on the 
motion that the Rev. Dr. Craik be elected President 
of the House. 

The motion was agreed to unanimously. 

The SECRETARY, I appoint the Rev. Dr. 
Mead and Governor Stevenson to conduct the 
President to the Chair, 



18 



The Rev. Dr. CRAIK, on taking the Chair, said : 
Brethren, I thank you with all my heart for this 
renewed expression of your confidence. I had 
hoped that the burdens of this oiRce would have 
been placed upon a younger and more capable per- 
son ; but the counsel of friends in whom the 
Church is accustomed to confide, and the kindly 
voice which you have just uttered, have determined 
otherwise. I accept the duty, and will try to per- 
form it in the fear of God, looking to Him for 
grace and strength, and looking to you to kindly 
forbear with my increasing infirmities. 

We have come together from this broad land to 
confer with one another upon the momentous in- 
terests, the ever-momentous interests, of Christ's 
Holy Church ; to remove obstructions in its way, 
if we find any ; to provide facilities for its pi-o- 
gress, if we may ; to see to it that this holy city of 
our Lord receive no detriment. Grand and inspir- 
ing is this duty, demanding wisdom, firmness, 
charity, time love to God and man, true love to 
mistaken impugners of the truth, as well as to 
those whom we deem its fastest friends. I am sure 
that you vidll perform this duty manfully, feai-less- 
ly, looking to God for help, for wisdom, for direc- 
tion. May the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of wisdom, 
love, and power, guide you, strengthen you, sus- 
tain you in all your work ! Amen. 

ELECTION OP SECRETARY. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move 
that we proceed to the election of Secretary, and I 
nominate the Rev. Dr. Perry. 

The PRESIDENT, It is moved that the Plouse 
proceed to the election of Secretary, the present 
Secretary being nominated as part of that motion. 

The motion was unanimously agreed to. 

RULES OF ORDER. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I offer the following reso- 
lution : 

Resolved, That the rules of order of the House of 
Clerical and Lay Deputies, as proposed to be 
amended and reported at the last General Conven- 
tion and printed in the Journal as appendix 16, No. 
2, on pages 621, 622, and 623, be adopted as the Rules 
of Order of this House, except that the Committee 
on Canons shall consist of 19 members instead of 13, 
as therein provided, the proportion of clergymen and 
laymen thereon to be left to the discretion of the 
President of this Convention. 

Mr. McCREDY, of South Carolina. I am op- 
posed to that, and I will give my reasons. I have 
read those rules, but I doubt whether many gentle- 
men here have read them. I think they are an im- 
provement on the rules adopted at the last House ; 
but the exception that is made I object to. 

The proposition now is to enlarge the Committee 
on Canons to 19. Will 19 work any better than 18 ? 
I think not. You have power in the Committee on 
Canons, as now organized, to divide itself into two 
and make two committees : One on Canon Law, 
and the other on the Constitution. At present you 
send all these subjects (whether they be constitu- 
tional or whether they he only legislative) to one 
committee. Now that is not the proper way, be- 
cause it tends in itself to confound subjects, and the 
committee is sometimes in doubt as to whether a 
subject ought to be presented by Canon or other- 
wise. I have seen that more than once, and I have 
known things to be done which would not 
have been done if there had been two com- 
mittees, one on the Constitution and one on the 
Canons. Now, if you look at the work which is 
brought before us, you will see that we do not have 
legislation, simply at our sessions, but we have many 
schemes brought before us which affect the organic 
constitution. Take for instance the provincial sys- 
tem. That is prominent before us at this time. 



That ought to go to a standing committee, 
not a special committee— that would take 
its place in order and be called before special 
committees. If you succeed in getting the 
same committee and divide it into two, mak- 
ing each a committee of thirteen, one on 
the Constitution and one on the Canons, you 
will find that your work will go on quite as fast as 
it can go on if you have but one committee. Com- 
mittees when they are so large as nineteen — 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will please 
give way that we may receive a message from the 
House of Bishops. 

NOTIFICATION OF ORGANIZATION. 

The following message (No. 1) was received from 
the House of Bishops by the hands of the Rev. Dr. 
Potter, its Secretary : 

The House of Bishops informs the House of 
Clerical and Lay Deputies that it has adopted the 
following resolution : 

Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to in- 
form the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies that 
this House is organized, and has elected the Rev, 
Henry C. Potter, d.d., of the Diocese of New 
York, as its Secretary, and is ready to proceed to 
business. 

On motion of Rev. Dr. Burgess, of Massachu- 
setts, a committee of two was ordered to be ap- 
pointed to inform the House of Bishops that the 
House of Clerical and Lay Deputies has organized 
and elected its officers, and is ready to proceed to 
business. 

Rev. Dr. Burgess, of Massachusetts, and Mr. 
Meads, of Albany, were appointed the committee. 

RULES OF order. 

Mr. McCREDY, of South Carolina. Mr. Presi- 
dent — 

The PRESIDENT. I would suggest that, in con- 
sequence of the message we have received from the 
House of Bishops, we postpone this resolution in or- 
der to pass a similar one to be sent to the House of 
Bishops to that which we have received from that 
House, informing them of our organization. 

Mr. McCREDY, of South Carolina. I would be 
very glad if this could be postponed until to-mor- 
row. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky, If the Deputy 
from South Carolina will give way, I will move 
that this resolution be printed and made the special 
order for to-morrow. I concur in most that the 
Deputy from South Carolina has said. The Com- 
mittee on Canons did very well when we had 12 or 
15 dioceses. Now we have over 40. Momentous 
questions come before this body as the Dioceses in- 
crease, and I think no better way can be had to 
reach the views of the honorable deputy from 
South Carolina than to refer this resolution to a 
committee of so many clerical and so many lay de- 
puties, who shall report whether we want any addi- 
tional committees and such amendments to the rules 
as will meet the general sense of the Convention. I 
am satisfied that great amendments are required in 
these rules. I am satisfied it is unjust to put upon 
any single committee the duties which now devolve 
upon the Committee on Canons ; and, as these im- 
mense questions come before this Convention, we 
ought to have committees of discreet and able men 
who shall give the various subjects their considera- 
tion and report such rules as will carry out the end. 
That can only be done by a reference of this resolu- 
tion to a committee. Let it be printed to-day, re- 
ferred to-morrow, and let us have a speedy report, 
and adopt the suggestions which a wise committee 
may make. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Conn. I fully agree with 
the gentlemen who have spoken, and I agree with 



them not theoretically but practically. I have had 
a great deal of experience upon the Committee on 
Canons, and T am certain that the legislation of the 
Church will be better conducted by dividing the 
Committee, or having the Committee on Canons as 
it is now a Committee on Canons, consisting of 13, 
and appointing a new committee for the purpose of 
considering all proposed constitutional amend- 
ments. I therefore hope that the motion offered hy 
the gentleman from Kentucky will prevail. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Let this reso- 
lution lie on the table. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD. If we want rules of order, 
we must adopt them to-day ; but we can to-morrow 
make a new rule of order which shall refer to a 
standing committee all proposed alterations or 
amendments to the Constitution ; and that is covered 
by the proposition of the gentleman from Ken- 
tuckj?-. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I yield with 
great deference to what my venerable and experi- 
enced friend from Connecticut says ; but I think 
the proper way to reach the thing at the root is to 
refer, and I move now to refer this resolution to a 
committee of five clerical and five lay deputies. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I did not bear 
what the reverend gentleman from Connecticut 
said; but I would suggest, as it is proper for us to 
have settled mles to begin with, that it would be 
better to take the rules as reported by the Commit- 
tee of the last General Convention, as they are now 
printed in the Journal where every member can 
see them, and then have this other question, which 
I think is a very important one, discussed afterward. 
We must have' a set of rules to begin business with. 
I therefore second the motion of the gentleman from 
Illinois, that we adopt the rules as they appear upon 
the Appendix to the last Journal, and then let the 
matter be referred either to a special committee or 
to the Committee on Canons, and I would prefer the 
latter Committee, because they are more familiar 
with the subjects that come before them and with 
the necessities for an increase of their number, than 
any special committee can be in the short time they 
will have to consider the mattei-. And I propose, 
therefore, that the whole subject be referred to the 
Committee on Canons, to report immediately to 
this Hovise such rules of order as may strike them 
as proper for the convenient transaction of business. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I suggest that the question 
may be divided, and the first question taken on 
the adoption of the rules without regard to enlarg- 
ing the Committee on Canons. That would relieve 
us from all embarrassment. The ordinary commit- 
tees will be announced to-morrow. A division being 
called for, we shall take the question on the first res- 
olution ; and there is no objection to it. The other 
point I care nothing about just now. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. We ought to 
proceed with deliberation and care. I therefore 
move the appointment of the delegation of New 
York to see if we cannot find a better room to de- 
liberate in. It is impossible here. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. Before that 
motion is put it is perhaps proper that the deputies 
from New York should be heard, that they may 
state why this building was selected. It has been 
selected for many years as the best and most appro- 
priate building for the Diocesan Convention. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I rise to a ques- 
tion of order. The gentleman is discussing a sub- 
ject foreign to the one before the Convention. 

The PRESIDENT. I think so. I was about to 
say that the proposition made by Mr. Hanckel was 
entirely out of order, and could not be considered 
until we dispose of the question as to the rules of 
order. The question now is on the adoption of the 
rules of order as reported by a Committee at the 



last Convention, printed in the Journal, and now 
appearing there as Appendix 16, No. 2. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I moved an 
amendment. I presume the first question that comes 
up is on the amendment. 

The PRESIDENT. Yes; but I understood Judge 
Otis to say that you had agreed to let the question 
be divided, and take it first on the main proposition 
to adopt the rules. I would suggest to Judge Otis to 
withdraw his exception. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I withdraw the exception, 
and that leaves it simply a resolution to adopt the 
rules of order. 
I Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I withdi'aw, 
then, my amendment, with this understanding : that 
no committees will be appointed in this body at all 
until the rules have been adopted. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The usual 
practice after the election of officers is to adopt the 
rules of the last Convention as the rules of this Con- 
vention until they are amended. I would remind 
the gentlemen also of the fact that the rules of the 
last Convention are not the rules proposed at pres- 
ent to be adopted ; but they were referred to a com- 
mittee of three, and that committee reported, and 
by a vote by dioceses and orders, the rules reported 
were adopted as the rules of order of the General 
Convention by a large majority. It would be wisest 
for us to adopt them now, and then, if you want 
any amendments to-morrow, it will be proper to 
introduce amendments. But there are various com- 
mittees which ought to meet to-morrow. Otherwise 
we are losing a day, and time is too precious for us 
to lose when we have so much apparently to come 
before us. I move, therefore, that the resolution 
offered by Mr. Otis, of Illinois, be adopted, that the 
rules of order of the last Convention be the rules of 
order of this Convention. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
rise to make an enquiry. What do the rules of 
order provide as to a change in the rules ? If we 
adopt these rules of order as jjroposed, a modifica- 
tion of any committee will be a change of the 
rules. Do the rules limit the right of the Conven- 
tion to change them by requiring a day's notice ? 
Are we at liberty as much to make a change as we 
are to adopt these rules now '{ 

The PRESIDENT. There is nothing in the rules 
concerning that matter. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Then we can amend at any time ? 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Yes, sir. 

The Rev. Dr. BEACH of New York. It is im- 
portant to know what rules of order we are to adopt. 
Are they the rules printed in the Journal of 1871, as 
of the tiiirteenth day's proceedings ? As I under- 
stand, they were not acted upon at the last Con- 
vention, but a motion was made that they should be 
deferred to be acted upon at this Convention. * That 
action will be found under the proceedings of the 
nineteenth day. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The last 
Convention could not pass rules for this Convention. 
Every Convention adopts its own rules. This 
Convention now may adopt the rules of the last 
Convention. 

The Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. The ques- 
I tion I wish to get at is this : In adopting the rules 
i of order of the last Convention, do we adopt the 
rules of order printed under the proceedings of the 
thirteenth day 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution specifies which 
set of mles we adopt — specifies that it is the set con- 
tained in Appendix 16, No. 2. Number 1 is the old 
rules under which we acted last time ; Number 2 is 
the new rules reported by the Committee ; and the 
question now is whether we shall adopt these new 
rules. 



15 



The Rev, Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I think i 
members of the House all understand that the i-ules { 
governing the last Convention were the rules of ; 
1868, and the rules printed as No. 2 of Appendix 16 
are simply proposed rules lying over from the last 
Convention into this ; so that, if we vote to adopt j 
the rules of the last Convention, wo adopt the rules \ 
of the Convention preceding, which we acted under 
at the last Convention ; while the second part of 
Appendix 16 consists merely of proposed rules, 
printed for the consideration of members during the 
recess, to be acted upon at this session. 

The PRESIDENT. But it is now proposed to 
adopt those rules, and the question is on the resolu- 
tion offered by Judge Otis, adopting the rules pro- 
posed at the last House. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh, Withdrawing 
the exception as to the Committee on Canons ? 

The PRESIDENT. That is withdrawn. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I want the 
House to understand what the question is, for I 
think it is a very important one. Are we voting on 
the proposed rules that were not acted upon three 
years ago, or are we adopting the rules which 
governed this Convention at its last session ^ 

The PRESIDENT. The new rules. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. On the proposed 
rules ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I call for the read- 
ing of the resolution of the deputy from Illinois, as 
amended. That will explain the whole thing. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be read 
as it now stands modified. 

The Secretary i-ead as follows : 

Resolved, That the rales of ordf;r of the House of Cleri- 
cal and Lay Di puties as proposed to be amended and re- 
ported at the last General Convention, and printed in the 
Journal as Appendix 16, No. 2, on pages 621, 622, and 
623. be adop'ed as the rules of order of this Convention. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. That amounts to a res- 
olution which will put in force a body of new rules 
which have never yet been in force in this House, 
and rules that nobody has had any opportunity that 
I am aware of, except by reading the Journal, to 
know anything about. I therefore move now to 
amend the resolution, by adopting the rules of or- 
der which were in force at the last Convention until 
otherwise ordered by the House ; and, having done 
that, we can take up these new rules at our conve- 
nience, and adopt them, if necessary, as a substitute 
for the old ones. It seems to me that the true thing 
to do, under the present circumstances, is to take up 
the body of the old rules in force at the last Conven- 
tion, and afterwards we can act upon any amend- 
ments to them. 

Mr. BURaWIN, of Pittsburgh. I hope the mo- 
tion just made wiU not be carried. The Committee 
that reported these rales was composed of the Rev. 
Dr. Mead, Rev. Dr. Haight, and Judge Sheffey. A 
more experienced Committee could not possibly have 
been selected in this House. They took the question 
under advisement, reported on the thirteenth day of 
the last session what rules they recommended, 
adopting substantially all the rules of the 
former House, with four or five important additions. 
That report was not acted upon finally, because of 
the late season at which the i-ules were reported, but 
by vote of the House they were directed to be 
printed in the Journal for the examination of the 
members who might be here to-day, so that they 
could act intelligently upon them, and thus obtain 
at an early period of the session (which of course is a 
very important matter), a set of rules carefully de- 
vised by a competent committee, such as that of 
which I have spoken. I will state for the information 
of the House, that I have examined very carefully the 
rules as reported by the Committee, and compared 
them with the old rules. Almost all the old rules 



are adopted in the new, but they are systematized 
and arranged in better order, because the old rules 
had grown up yeai- by year, as a kind of ijatch- 
work, without any oi-der or ai-rangement. This 
Committee applied those rules and arranged them 
systematically, in the first place, and they then 
niade, I believe, substantially five changes, of which 
I have made a note. 

In the first place, they provide foi- the appoint- 
ment of Committees. Previously the appointment 
of the standing committees of the House had been 
by resolution ; but now, by Rule 4 of the revised 
rules, it is made the duty of the President to appoint 
the regular standing committees, with the addition 
of one on memorials of deceased members. 

In the second place, they provide for a calendar, 
to be made out by the Secretary of the House, upon 
which all motions, resolutions, and reports shall 
go down in their order, to come up in their 
order for discussion, wliich calendar is to be 
taken up every day at 12 o'clock, unless 
there be a special order which would take its place. 

In the third place, it is provided that upon all 
nominations sent down from the House of Bishops 
for Missionary Bishops, this House shall sit with 
closed doors. 

The next addition is, that where a matter is 
brought before the House with a view to its being- 
referred to committee, no debate shall take place 
upon the question of reference ; but it shall go to 
the Committee, reserving debate until the Com- 
mittee has been heard from, so as very properly to 
prevent two discussions or two debates on the same 
sub j ect-matter . 

In the next place, where an amendment is offered 
to a matter pending before the House, a motion to 
lay that amendment on the table can be carried 
without carrying the whole subject-matter. Under 
the usual parliamentary law, where a question is 
before the House and an amendment is moved, if 
apy one move to lay that amendment on the table, 
that motion being carried, the whole subject-matter 
is carried with it, sometimes to the very great sur- 
prise of the House, who have just given the vote. 
This alteration of the rules provides that such a 
motion may be made, where an objectionable 
amendment is moved, and when carried the orig- 
inal matter still remains before the House, as if 
that amendment had not been moved. 

These, I believe, are the substantial changes which 
the Committee, from theii- experience, thought 
proper to suggest for the adoption of the House, so 
that if we agree to the motion of the lay gentleman 
from Illinois, the effect will be simply to adopt the 
old rules, with the additions I have now stated to 
the House. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I wish 
to call attention to another change wliichthe gentle- 
man has not pointed out ; but it may have been an 
accidental omission on the part of the printer. 
According to Rule 19 of the last Convention, two 
amendments were allowed, an amendment and an 
amendment to an amendment, and then a substitute 
for the whole matter. In the proposed rules of 
order that clause is thi'own out. It says, " No after 
amendment to such second amendment shall be in 
order." Nothing is said about a substitute. Now, 
the question is whether a substitute will still be in 
order ? , 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I think under 
the general parliamentary law a substitute is always 
in order after there have been two amendments. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. Why 
not have it so stated in the rules of order ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I cannot say 
what reason induced the Committee to leave it out, 
but probably it was because they thought it un- 
necessary. 



16 



Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. That is already the law, 
and there is no necessity for repeating it. You can 
always move a substitute. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. Very 
well. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. There is one 
other amendment which I omitted to state, and that 
is that no new business shall be introduced after the 
13th day, imless upon a vote of two-thirds of the 
House. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I desire to say 
a single word. I have as much respect for the opin- 
ion of the learned Deputy from Pittsburgh as any- 
body else. He tells us that he has read these rules. 
Who else has rea,d them ? They were proposed by 
the last Convention to this. Is it wisdom for this 
Convention to take rules that they have not looked 
at ? Is it parliamentary to take rules that you have 
never looked at ? Suppose the learned deputy from 
Pittsburgh has read them ; suppose half a dozen 
others have read them ; I want to read them, I want 
to reflect upon them. I suppose other gentlemen 
want to reflect upon them. There is always wisdom 
in multiplicity of counsel, and there might be other 
amendments which might be suggested. 

Now, why not adopt the old rules that we have 
been acting under, and let this subject come up for 
debate to-morrow ? That is usual. Even in the 
statement, for which the Convention is obliged to 
the learned gentleman from Pittsburgh, he omitted 
some of the proposed changes, and we have difficul- 
ties already as to whether a substitute is, under 
general parliamentary law, always in order or not. 
Ought not that to be considered ? Why not. As 
these rules were referred to this Convention, and as 
this Convention is the only body that can adopt 
them, as this Convention is the body to be regulated 
by them, is it not usual, proper, and parhamentary 
to let this report come up for consideration to see 
whether it is perfect, and if not perfect, that it may 
be made so by amendment, and let us to-day simply 
adopt the old rules ^ That seems to me wise, and 
sanctioned by parliamentary law. I hope this Con- 
vention will only to-day adopt the old rules, and 
let this subject of proposed changes come up after- 
wards. 

One word further. The learned deputy said that 
the rales had been revised by distinguished gentle- 
men. I agree with him. I know two or three of 
those gentlemen, and I would confide myself any 
subject of rule-making to them ; but even the work 
of that Committee is to-day shown not to be perfect 
by the recommendation made by the learned 
Deputy from Illinois to increase the Committee on 
Canons from 13 to 19. That shows that the mem- 
bers of this Convention had not yet considered the 
subject fully, and I beg gentlemen on both sides to 
agree that we shall to-day simply adopt our old 
rales, and not make haste too fast in adopting new 
rales that the members of the Convention have not 
even read or heard. 

I move to amend the resolution by simply adopt- 
ing to-day the old rules. 

The PRESIDENT. That is the motion before the 
House made by Mr. Meads, to amend the resolution 
offered by Judge Otis by adopting the old rules. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I withdraw my 
amendment if it has been moved already. 

The Rev. Dr. MEi^^, of Connecticut. I think it 
would be better if all these resolutions were with- 
drawn, and we proceeded as we did at the last Con- 
vention to authorize the President to appoint certain 
committees and afterwards provide for rules. Mean- 
while we are under the usual parliamentary rales. 
When we meet to-morrow we shall be under those 
rales as a body. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
think this amendment would meet both views : that 



we adopt these rules provisionally until we can 
make some that we ai'e satisfied with. The usual 
order in such cases is to adopt the rules of the last 
House " until otherwise ordered by this House." I 
move to amend by striking out aU after the word 
" Resolved," and putting in the words "until other- 
wise ordered by this House." 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. That was part of my 
proposed amendment. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Then I do not see that we shall gain anything by 
adopting one set more than another if the reserva- 
tion is contained in the body of the resolution that 
we may change the rules when we have more intel- 
ligence in the subject ; and as between the two, those 
which have been proposed by a committee who have 
given the subject careful consideration, and those 
which have been acted upon by this Convention 
formerly, I think the House would much prefer the 
intelligent result of an examination by a committee. 
I hope therefore the original resolution will not pre- 
vail. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I have never 
read these rales. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The ques- 
tion is on adopting the old rales of order, I under- 
stand ? 

The PRESIDENT. The first question is on the 
I amendment of Mr. Meads to adopt the old rules as 
, the rules of this House, until they are amended. 
! The amendment was agreed to. 

The resolution as amended was agreed to. 

STANDING COMMITTEES. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move 
now, as there is no provision made in the old rules 
for the appointment of committees, that the follow- 
ing resolution be adopted : 

Resolved, That ihe rresident appoint the following Stand- 
ing Committees : 1st, A Committee on the State of the 
Church, to consist of one member from each dioce.-e ; 2d, a 
Committee on the General Theological Seminary; 3d, on the 
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society ; 4th, on the Ad- 
mission of New Dioceses ; 5th, on the Consecration of 
Bishops ; 6th, on Canons ; 7th, on Expenses ; 8th, on Un- 
j flniched Business ; 9t/i, on Elections; 10th, on the Prayer- 
1 Book ; 11th, on Christian Education, and 12th, on Memori- 
I als of Deceased Members, each, except the first, to consist 
i of thirteen members. 

The Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. I move 
to amend by adding, "except the Committee on 
Canons, which shall consist of nineteen members." 

The PRESIDENT. That introduces the matter 
which gentlemen wanted to defer the discussion of 
until to-morrow. I hope the amendment will not be 
pressed. 

The Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. I with- 
draw it. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the resolu- 
tion of Dr. Mead. 
The resolution was agreed to. 

RULES OF ORDER. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I move 
that the rales of order reported at the last Conven- 
tion be made the special order of this House for to- 
morrow, at 12 o'clock. 

The motion was agreed to. 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY. 

The Secretary announced the appointment of 
the Rev. William C. Williams, D.D., of the Diocese 
of Georgia, as Assistant Secretary. 

PLACE OF MEETING. 

The Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. I rise to 
renew the motion I sought to make a while ago, and 
the confusion of to-day shows the absolute neces- 
sity of it. I noticed that the Chair was obliged to 



17 



put a motion twice because the House did not un- 
derstand the question. Just now the delegate from 
Connecticut proposed the appointment of a com- 
mittee, and, before he took his seat, another gentle- 
man, half a dozen pews off, proposed to do just the 
same thing. It seems, therefore, that we are going 
to do business several times over in this House if we 
attempt to go on in a place so utterly unsuited 
for delibei-ation. I am satisfied that this is 
not a proper hall for deliberation. Where I sit not 
a syllable has been heard of what many speakers 
have said. I move that it be referred to a commit- 
tee of three of the New York delegation to enquire 
whether we cannot find, in the city of New York, a 
place better adapted for the deliberations of this 
bodv. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The gentle- 
man from New York (Mr. Livingston) referred 
to this building having previously been the 
general house of meeting. I grant it ; but since we 
met here before a chancel has been added, and the 
sound is entirely destroyed. I would just as soon 
go back to Trinity Chapel as stay here. I would 
propose that the committee should consist of lay 
gentlemen to enquire and report whether we can 
get "the little church around the corner ■' again. 
That is the place I want to go to. Members are 
located in that direction, and if we meet ihere t^hey 
will stay there during the sittings ; but we have to 
come two or three miles down-town to this build- 
ing. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I ask gentle- 
men to give it a trial of one day. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. We have had a 
trial of half an hour already, and scarcely an indi- 
vidual can hear my voice, though it sounds like 
thunder. [Laughter.] I do not want to exhaust 
my lungs at the age of nearly eighty. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. Mr. President 
and Gentlemen, before you decide that you will not 
have this house, I ask you to hear from the delega- 
tion upon whom you devolved the duty of provid- 
ing a house for you. You say that this room is un- 
fit. It will not do for us to deny it ; but have you 
tried it ? I think not. This building was provided 
for the religious services of this morning, and it was 
supposed that very little of the business of the Con- 
vention would be attempted to be done to-day after 
the rehgious services were performed. It was in- 
tended to prepare the seats appropriated for each 
delegation, which has not been done, so that to-day 
the delegates are all mingled up ; but that matter 
will be looked after as soon as an adjournment is 
had. It was intended to provide rostrums, and they 
are ready, so that members desiring to address the 
House in any lengthy remarks may stand in a 
position where they may be heard with ease by 
members in any part of the House. You have not 
yet tried this. If you go into another church build- 
ing, you must go to one that is large enough to 
receive and accommodate not only the Deputies to 
this Convention, but very many persons who have 
come from a distance to attend as spectators and 
auditors. You must have a building sufficiently 
spacious to receive and accommodate them. This 
building was selected not only as an auditorium, 
but on other accounts. It was the duty of the 
delegation from New ^Tork to provide accommoda- 
tions for the Bishop, and a building adjoins this 
chapel which is admu^ably adapted for that purpose. 
Committee-rooms had to be provided, and they are 
ready at hand. One gentleman suggests to me that 
a lunch-room was needed. It is ready at hand, 
a.nd arrangements have been made to provide a 
lunch for the Bishops and for the Deputies every 
day. Then we have here committee-rooms con- 
veniently at hand. Perhaps there are better 
auditoriums in the city than this, but I know of no 



building that commands all the advantages of this. 

It was the decided opinion of our revered and very 

efficient colleague. Dr. Haight, that this was almost 

the only building in the city of New York adapted 

f oi' the purposes of this Convention. 
Now, gentlemen, of course we have no objection 
\ to your searching the city, and I trust you may 

find a better building ; but my opinion is that you 
! had better go on with what you have got, and give 

it at any rate a trial for to-morrow, and then send 
i out a committee and search through the city if you 
! are not satisfied, 

i Mr, WELSH, of Pennsylvania. AUow me to ask 
, the deputy from New York, while he has the floor, 
! whether it would not be possible to have a curtain 
■ put over the recess of the channel ^ Twelve years 
ago when we sat here, we had not the difficulty 
! which has been experienced to-day. An attempt 
I has been made to improve the hearing capacities of 
1 the haU by wires across the ceiling, and yet there 
j are difficulties wliich we did not experience twelve 
I years ago, but it may be that we have become old 
i and feeble, and that our voices are weak ; but there 
j are some young men here, and I fear they would 

find difficulty in being heard. 
: Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York, If the Conven- 
tion are decidedly disposed to accept the suggestion 
i of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that matter 
! could be arranged within a day or two. Undoubt- 
edly, this House ought to have the best auditorium 
that can be found in the city. The delegation from 
New York believed that this was the best ; but if a 
majority of the Convention think that a better one 
can be selected, surely we shall make no objection 
to your doing it. 

Li regard to the suggestion of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, I will say that that matter was con- 
sidered, and it was stated by some members who at- 
tended one of the former Conventions that the cur- 
tain did hot avail for the purpose intended, and that 
therefore it was not worth while to provide a cur- 
tain now. I will state that men worked aU night 
one night to construct the wires which gentlemen 
see imder the ceiUng. It was stated that an inven- 
tion of that kind had been tried in two or three 
I'ooms m the United States, and also in a cathedral 
abroad, and had been found to work successfully in 
improving the acoustic properties of the building. 
I am sorry to say that I do not think it has been a 
success here. The attempt was made, however. If 
it is the decided opinion of the body that a curtain 
! should be placed in front of the chancel, it will be 
I prepared as soon as it can be. 

i Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The argimaent is 
j very simple ; twelve years ago, we had not the diffi- 
I culty that we experience to-day. The change that 
I has been made has been in the chancel. If the gen- 
; tleman says the New York delegation will try the 
j experiment of a curtain before it, I hope the reso- 
' lution wiU not be pressed, 

1 The Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I move 
I that this question be postponed until two o'clock 
I to-morrow. The New York delegation evidently 
1 have made very great efforts to accommodate this 
j body. It is, however, perfectly apparent that per- 
I sons can be heard here only with great difficulty, 
\ The suggestion that there be a rostrum, at which 
1 members who intend to speak at any considerable 
j length may stand, will probably remove that diffi- 
' culty. Then, when we consider the very great 
j kindness of our New York friends, I think we 
I ought to stay in the building provided for us, if it 
j can be made sufficiently convenient. Certainly, I 
think the argumentum ad hominem, which is a 
j knock-down argument commonly, is ten times as 
i strong when it assimaes the phase of the argumen- 
\ turn ad stomaehum ; and hence I think that after 
i lunch to-morrow we shall be in a humor to meet 



18 



this question candidly and fairly. [Laughter.] My 
motion is to postpone the consideration of the sub- 
ject until two o'clock to-morrow. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I suggest that we 
try to-morrow's session in this hall. 

The Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The Lay 
Deputy from New York suggests to me to move to 
postpone until Friday morning, so that we may try 
this hall to-morrow. I accept that suggestion and 
make that motion. 

Mr. "WILDER, of Minnesota. I would remind 
members that the principal discussion which has 
taken place to-day has been in a narrow circle im- 
mediately around the Chair, and the gentlemen who 
have spoken, with scarcely an exception, have faced 
the Chair, so that they spoke from the great body of 
the delegations in this house, and that was one reason 
why they could not be heard. Another difficulty 
has been, though I do not mean to criticise, gentle- 
men, that it ha.s certainly not been uncommon to-day 
that more than one has been speaking at the same 
time. I believe that does not facilitate hearing very 
much. [Laughter. ] I suppose that between now and 
the hour of assembling to-morrow morning the seats 
of the delegations from the several dioceses will be 
set off for them, or at all events so marked that each 
delegation will know its own place. The et^ect of 
that will be that the gentlemen who most promi- 
nently and most frequently addi^ess the Convention 
will be distributed all through the house, and some 
system will be adopted. It does seem to me that we 
are acting quite prematurely when we act upon the 
hypothesis that we cannot be heard successfully in 
this house as twelve years ago we were heard here. 
I believe when we get into working order, and the 
Deputies of the respective dioceses are seated to- 
gether in their assigned places, and gentlemen have 
accustomed themselves to the acoustic qualities of 
this building, we shall get along very satisfactorily. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Is anything be- 
fore the House now i 

The PRESIDENT. A motion to postpone.- 

The Rev. Dr. BERKLEY, of Missouri. I move 
that the proposition for the appointment of a com- 
mittee to procure another place of meeting be laid 
on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. That motion takes precedence. 
The motion was agreed to. 

ENGLISH CHURCH CONGRESS. 

The following message (No. 2) was received from 
the House of Bishops : 

The House of Bishops informs the House of Dep- 
uties that it has received the following communica- 
tion by cable telegraph : " Presiding I3ishop General 
Convention, New York. Chm-ch Congress of the 
Church of England, assembled at Brighton, greets 
the General Convention, and prays that, through 
the Divine blessing on its deliberations, union be- 
tween the Churches of Ameiica and England may 
be sti-eng-thened. " (Signed) Bishop of Chichester. 

And that it has unanimously adopted the follow- 
ing resolution : 

Resolved, That the despatch received from the Bishop 
of Chichester, conveying the greetings of the Church Con- 
gress at Brighton, Eegland, to the G-neral Convention, be 
communicated to the Hous-- of Deputies, and that, if that 
House concur, a j dntreplj^ be sent to the Bisbop of Chi- 
chester, communicating our hearty thanks and the assur- 
ance of our best wishes for the success of their meeting. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move the con- 
currence of this House in the action of the House of 
Bishops, and that a committee of three be appoint- 
ed to unite with the House of Bishops in sending a 
reply. 

The motion was agreed to ; and Rev. Dr. Shel- 
TON of Western New York, Rev. Dr. Burgess of 
Massachusetts, and Mr. Livingston of New York, 
were appointed the Committee. 



I FAMILIES OF DEPUTIES. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I offer the fol- 
; lowing resolution: 

j Resolved, That one of the galleries be reserved for the 
! families of Deputies. 

I will state that this is the usage ; but the Conmilt- 
tee did not feel free to reserve a gallery without the 
action of the House. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. We have al- 
i ready done more than the ordinary business of the 
I first day of the session. I move, therefore, that this 
! House do now adjourn until 10 o'clock to-morrow. 
I The motion was agreed to, and the House ad- 
I jounied. 



! SECOND DAY. 

Thursday, October 8. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 

j 10 A.M. 

I Morning Prayer was said by the Right Rev. Henry 
I Adams Neely, D.D., Bishop of Maine, assisted by the 
I Right Rev. Alfred Lee, d.d., Bishop of Delaware. 

The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read 
I and approved. 

I assistant secretary. 

i Rev. Dr. HASKINS, of Long Island. The Secre- 
! tary announced yesterday that he had appointed the 
Rev. William C. Williams, D.D., of the Diocese of 
i Georgia, First Assistant Secretary. That nomina- 
I tion was not confirmed by the House. I now move 
i the selection of Dr. Williams by the Secretary as 
j his Assistant Secretary, be confirmed by the 
\ House. 

The motion was agreed to unanimously. 
I arrangement of the hall, 

I The PRESIDENT. There is one matter which 
: I suggest to the House should precede the ordinary 
i conduct of business. Communications from the 
I President are fii"st in order, and I am prepared to 
i amiounce some of the committees ; but the Deputy 
I from New York who is taldng care of us here wishes 

to make some explanation at once with regard to 
I the arrangements of the House. Will the House 
: hear that explanation now ? [" Yes."] 
I Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that the 

rules of order be suspended for that purpose. 
The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. The deputa- 
tion from New York desire to make an explana- 

! tion, or, perhaps, an apology, for not having their 
arrangements perfected, as it was thought they 
would be, yesterday. Orders were given for the 
construction of a curtain, to be hung in front of the 
chancel, and as it involves two or three hundred 

i yards of sewing, and requires many women to work 

gretty much all night, the curtain has not been 
nished, but it is expected that it will be finished by 
j to-morrow mornino-. Then as to the rostrimis, 
! which were intended to be used — one in front of the 
^ President's chair, as is the one where I now stand, 
' and the other near the bar, at the lower end of the 
i middle aisle, so as to give facilities at both ends of 
; the room — they have been, to a certain extent, con- 
: demned by gentlemen who have looked at them, 
and orders have been given for the construction of 
a small stage in front of the President's chair ; that 
also will be prepared to-morrow morning. I trust, 
therefore, that gentlemen will exalt their voices 
somewhat more to-day (if they speak from their 
I seats and condemn the rostrums), so that they may 
: be heard a little more distinctly. I think that, by 
■ gentlemen rising and turning partially towards 



19 



their fellow-members in the House, they will be 
heard with more distinctness than by turning their 
faces toward the Chair. The seat of the Chairman 
has been advanced beyond where it was yesterday, 
and I think now there will be no difficulty in hear- 
ing- the Chair during the whole day. If, however, 
it should be found that it requires a sounding-board 
at the rear of the Chair, that will be constructed 
after it shall be ascertained that the present ari-ange- 
ments are insufficient. 

STANDING COMMITTEES. 

The PRESIDENT. I have worked on the com- 
mittees, and have not been able to quite finish them. 
I have only been able to take the list of Deputies 
as printed. If in any delegation there are gentle- 
men mentioned on the committees who will not be 
here in the early part of the session, or not at all, 
the delegation will be so good as to inform the 
Chair, and let a change be made in the committee. 

The Secretary read the list. 

The PRESIDENT. There are two committees 
not yet filled. I worked up to the last hour with 
the assistance of a friend, and this is all that I 
could accomplish. There are some one or two mis- 
takes I see in this list, by which a few persons ai-e 
on two committees, I will try and correct that 
with the Secretary. 

Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey. I move 
that the Secretary be instructed to- have 500 copies 
of the list of members and standing committees of 
this body printed for the use of the members. It is 
unnecessary to discuss this motion. It is the usual 
course adopted for the convenience of members. 

The PRESIDENT. That is a very proper thing, 
and I will receive the motion, unless there be peti- 
tions and memorials to be offered to the House. If 
there are no petitions or memorials, we pass to mo- 
tions and resolutions. 

Rev. Dr. CHASE, of Illinois. I have a memorial 
or paper in the natirre of a memorial. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will receive it. 

BISHOPS-ELECT. 

The Rev. Dr. CHASE, of Illinois, presented the 
testimonials of the Rev. George P. Seymour, D.D., 
as Bishop-elect of the Diocese of Illinois, which were 
referred to the Committee on the Consecration of 
Bishops. 

The Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin, pre- \ 
sented the testimonials of the Rev. Dr. Edward R. i 
Welles, D.D., as Bishop-elect of the Diocese of Wis- i 
cousin, which were referred to the Committee on j 
the Consecration of Bishops. 

MEMORIALS. ! 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin, presented a me- [ 
moriai adopted at a Council of the Diocese of Wis- 
consin, asking the General Convention to take mea- j 
sures toward securing for use in divine worship ' 
an English Version of the Nicene Creed, as con- : 
formable as may be to the original text, which was j 
read and referred to the Committee on the Prayer- 
Book. I 

The Rev. Mr. EASTON, of California, presented 
a memorial of the Diocese of California for the es- i 
tablishment of two missionaiy jurisdictions in that ; 
diocese ; which the Secretary proceeded to read, but I 
was intermpted by — 

The Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersev. I ' 
rise to a point of order. Is it necessary that all me- I 
mortals be read? It seems to me we are establishing I 
a precedent if we go on reading them. We may 
have memorials presented which it would not be de- 
sirable to have read. | 

The PRESIDENT. The reading will be a matter [ 
of course, if those who offer memorials desire to 



have them read, unless the House rules to the con- 
trary. 

The Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I 
withdraw my motion. 

I The PRESIDENT. The reading will proceed. 

' The Secretary resumed the reading of the memo- 
rial, and having proceeded for some time was inter- 
rupted by — 

Mr. CU YLER, of Western New York. I hope the 
reading will be dispensed with, and the m emorial re- 
ferred to the proper committee, and printed in the 

' Journal, where it will meet the notice of the House. 
I suggest that memorials of this kind be referred by 

j the Chair to the appropriate committee without de- 

I bate. 

; The PRESIDENT. That cannot be done without 
i an order of the House. 

j Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The Committee on 
Canons is the proper committee to which it should 
' be referred. 

; The PRESIDENT. It is moved to refer the me- 
l moriai to the Committee on Canons. 
I Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I wish to say a 
j word about the reading of this memorial. I desire 
that the Convention should not refer these memor- 
I ials to the Committee without their being read. 
! They go to that Committee as memorials and never 
I come before this Convention again. As memorials 
they are reported upon, and you take the judgment 
of the Committee. But this case of California and 
one or two others are cases peculiar. They come 
here for a special law and special action which has 
never been had heretofore. Their reasons rest upon 
the grounds stated in the memorial, and they are 
peculiar. I hold in my hand a memorial which I 
desire this House to hear, exactly in accord with 
j the one now being heard. Therefore, I hope the 
j reading of the memorial of California will be 
finished, and that then the memorial of Texas will be 
I read, and that any other memorials that come here 
I asking special action upon special grounds will be 
heard by the House. You are the ultimate body to 
act, and you should know our reasons, and not take 
them second-hand from a committee. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. The memorial must be 
read if any member demands it. 

The PRESIDENT, pro tempore. (Rev. Dr. 
Williams, of Georgia, in the chair.) That is the 
ruling of the Chair. 

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. Would it not accom- 
plish the purpose infinitely better to have the me- 
morial referred and printed ? I assure the Deputy 
from Texas that gentlemen hear with so much diffi- 
culty in different parts of the House that we do not 
catch what is desired in reading a memoiial. We 
cannot understand it sufficiently to base any intelli- 
gent action upon it. It seems to me we should save 
a vast deal of time by referring all these memorials 
to the appropriate committees, and, if they be of 
sufficient importance, letting them be printed and 
placed in our hands in printed form. Not one-tenth 
of the members of this House know anything intel- 
ligently about the memorial from California that 
has been partly read. I move, therefore, a general 
resolution that all memorials be received, read by 
their titles, and referred to the appropriate commit- 
tees, and, where they are deemed of sufficient im- 
portance to justify it, printed and distributed 
through the House. 

The Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I should be 
glad to expedite business, but I would like that the 
matters contained in these memorials should come to 
the knowledge of this House. I am very fearful 
that they never will be printed, and if printed never 
read as they should be. 

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. That is the very point 
I am anxious about, to get to our knowledge the con- 
tents of these memorials. I have had no intelligent 



20 



knowledge of the California memorial so far as it 
has been read, and I think that is true of everybody 
around me. 

The PRESIDENT pro tern. The Chair will rule 
that it must be read. 

Mr. LAMBERTON, of Central Pennsylvania. . It 
can very readily come to the knowledge of the 
House after the report of the coromittee. 

The Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I call the 
gentleman to order. Has not the President decided 
the point ? 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I rise to a ques- 
tion of order. I believe we have at twelve o'clock 
a special order, which takes precedence of every- 
thing. 

The PRESIDENT pro tern. It does. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I ask that the 
rule be enforced, and that we proceed to the consi- 
deration of the special order, the hour of twelve 
having now arrived. 

Rev. Dr. BRECK, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
move that the special order be suspended for a mo- 
ment for the purpose of passing certain resolutions 
of courtesv. 

The PRESIDENT pro tern. The question is on 
suspending the rules to permit the introduction of 
resolutions of courtesy. 

The motion was agreed to. 

BISHOP OF LICHFIELD AND OTHER VISITORS. 

Rev. Dr. BRECK, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
oifer the following resolutions : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That a joint committee, consisting of four on the 

Eart of this House, be appointed to wait upon the 
lOrd Bishop of Lichfield, and convey to him the 
expression of their very great satisfaction at his 
presence again in our midst, and of their deep obli- 
gation for his able and most admirable sermon 
preached at the opening of this General Conven- 
tion. 

" Resolved, That the Lord Bishop be requested to 
furnish a copy of the same for publication by the 
Convention. " 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. President, 
I cannot vote for that first resolution, inasmuch as 
I did not hear the sermon, and I believe a great 
many persons in this church did not hear it. I can 
vote for a resolution requesting a copy of the ser- 
mon, without any qualification, to be published ; 
but now I am called upon to vote that it was an ad- 
mirable sermon. Not having heard it, I cannot pro- 
nounce upon it ; nor do I think this House is re- 
quired to do that. I think the compliment should 
be in asking for the sermon to be published. We 
pronounce no opinion on our own Bishops when 
they preach sermons to us ; but we merely order 
their sermons to be published. All we need do in this 
case is to ask for a copy of this sermon to be pub- 
lished ; but it is not consistent to express an opinion 
on it when I have not heard it, and many of you 
have not heard it. If you strike out all that is mat- 
ter of opinion, I will go for the resolutions with all 
my heart ; but I cannot vote to admire anything 
that I do not understand and have not heard. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the reso- 
lutions of the Deputy from Central Pennsylvania, 

The resolutions were agreed to ; and Rev. Dr. 
Breck, of Central Pennsylvania ; Rev. Dr. Vinton, 
of Massachusetts ; Mr. Waite, of Ohio ; and Mr. 
Race, of Louisiana, were appointed the committee. 

Rev. Dr. SHELTON, of Western New York. 
The resolutions just adopted left out something, 
which I beg leave to add by offering this : 

"Resolved, That this House expresses its great 
gratification at the attendance of the Rt. Rev. the 
Lord Bishop of Lichfield, the Metropolitan of 
Canada, the Lord Bishop of Quebec, the Lord 



1 Bishop of Kingston, and of the Venerable the Arch- 
deacon of Niagara, Dr. Fuller, the Venerable Arch- 
deacon Balch of Huron, the Rev. Dr. Geddes of 
Ontario, the Rev. Dr. Ketchum, Honorary Canon 
of Fredericton, the Rev. Edward J, Edwards, . 
Vicar of Trentham, England, and other English 
and Colonial clergy present ; and that a committee 
be appointed to invite the Bishops and the other 
clergy named to attend the sessions of this body, 
and that they also arrange the time and manner of 
their first reception by this House." 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I move to amend 
that i-esolution by adding, "and any priests or other 
clergymen of the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church." 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution had better be 
read by the Secretary, so that it may be seen 
whether the amendment is appropriate. 

The resolution was read. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The amendment 
is simply that, after the general invitation to the 
bishops and clergy of our own Communion, the An- 
gUcan Communion, we add then "and any priests 
or other clergy of the Holy Orthodox Eastern 
Church. " That prevents any separate resolution to 
that end. But the Secretary thinks it would be 
better to let this drop for a moment and bring it in 
afterwards. 

Ihe PRESIDENT. I think so myself. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I withdraw the 
amendment. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the reso- 
lution of the Deputy from Western New York. 

The resolution was agreed to, and the President 
appointed Rev. Dr. Shelton, of Western New York ; 
Rev. Dr. Cady, of New York ; Rev. Dr. Minnige- 
rode, of Virginia, and Mr. Churchill, of Kentucky, 
as the committee. 

ADMISSIONS TO THE FLOOR. 

The Rev. Dr. BERKLEY, of Missouri. Mr. Pres- 
ident, there is another complimentary resolution 
that we are accustomed to pass, which will come 
very properly in the present stage of the proceed- 
ings, if it is admissible : 

"Resolved, That clergymen of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church in the United States, of the churches 
of England and Ireland, and the British Colonial 
Church, and of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, 
who may be sojourning in this city, members of 
the Board of Missions of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, trustees, professors, and students of the 
General Theological Seminary; other students of 
j theology who may be candidates for Holy Orders in 
i this Church, former members of the House of Cler- 
I ical and Lay Deputies, and members of the Vestry 
j of Trinity Church, and also the rector and assistant 
! ministers of the same, be admitted to the sittings of 

this house. " 
I The resolution was agreed to. 

} Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I move now 
j the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That any priests or other clergy of 
I the Ho]y Orthodox Eastern Church be invited to 

take seats in this Convention." 
I Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. That is a very 
j important matter, and we want to hear something 
I about it. 

I Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. It is merely a 
I resolution of courtesy. There is a great body of 
I Christian people, constituting one of the three great 
I bodies of the Holy Catholic Church throughout the 
! world, which to-day are not in visible communion, 

although they are in the unity of the Spirit, and 
I hope for a more clearly defined bond of peace. 
: Hitherto it has only been possible for these various 
I bodies, or at least two of them — that is to say, 

the Anglican Church and the Holy Orthodox East- 
■ ern Church — to meet each other in courtesy. Now, 



21 



arrangements have been made through the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury by which the dead of our 
Communion fi'om England or this country can be 
buried by the Orthodox clergy, and othei- offices of 
courtesy and kindness can be performed. The Arch- 
bishop of Syra, representing the Holy Orthodox 
Eastern Church, latelj^ visited the Church of Eng- 
land, and was there received with the greatest 
honor. Prelates of our own Church and clergy of 
lower degree have likewise been received by the 
Eastern clergy. There are, in this city, with the 
approbation of the Bishop of the Diocese, clergy of 
the Holy Orthodox Eastern Communion. It is be- 
lieved, in fact it is known, that they are present now 
in this House, and, as a member of the Russo-Greek 
Committee, it was suggested to me that, in the gen- 
eral recognition of the clerical rank and character 
which these resolutions imply, these brethren should 
be likewise recognized. It touches not at all the 
doctrines of their Church ; it touches not at all their 
attitude toward us ; it simply recognizes that they 
are clergy of a Church toward which we hope that, 
in the providence of God, we may be drawn in love, 
without any sacrifice of our own principles. 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I have no mo- 
tion to make, but simply rise to suggest to the mover 
of this resolution whether it would not be well, out 
of courtesy, to add, " and any bishops or priests or 
clergy of the Roman Catholic Church ! " [Laugh- 
ter.] 

The Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Consider- 
ing that the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church is hold- 
ing out her hands to us, and we have asked the clergy 
of that Communion to bury our dead, promising to 
bury theirs ; and considering that this Church has 
appointed a committee to correspond with that 
Church, which committee, composed of Bishops, has 
fulfilled its duty; considering that for many Con- 
ventions past this Church has claimed it as one of 
her glories that she stands for the unity of Christ's 
Catholic Church so far as that can be without sacri- 
ficing our Protestant and Episcopal position ; con- 
sidering that this Church lies under the anathema of 
the Church of Rome, I decline to accept the amend- 
ment of the Deputy from Kentucky, ["Good." 
"Good."] 

The resolution was agreed to. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I ask leave of absence 
for my colleague, Mr. Forsyth, until Monday next, 
on account of sickness in his family. 

Leave was granted. 

RULES OF ORDER. 

The order of the day was called for. 

The PRESIDENT. The order of the day is the 
subject of the rules of order. The Secretary will 
read the rules proposed for adoption. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I wish to offer an 
amendment. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. To facilitate business I 
propose that we take the rules in order and act first 
on the first one. Let the Secretary read the first 
rule. 

The PRESIDENT. That course will be pursued. 
The Secretary read the first rule as follows : 
"1. The Morning Service of the Church shall be 
performed every day during the session of the Con- 
vention. " 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move the adoption of 
that rule of order. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows: 

"2. When the President takes the chair, no mem- 
ber shall continue standing, or shall afterwards 
stand up, except to address the Chair. " 

The rule was adopted. 



The Secretary read the next rule, as follows : 
"3. When the President shall have taken the 
chair, the Roll of Members shall be called, and the 
Minutes of the preceding day read; but the same 
may be dispensed with by a majority of the House." 
The rule was adopted. 

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows : 

"4. At the opening of the Session, the President 

shall appoint the following Standing Committees, 

to wit : 

I. On the State of the Church, to consist of one 

member from each Diocese ; and, 

II. On the General Theological Seminary. 

III. On the Domestic and Foreign Missionary So- 

ciety. 

IV. On the Admission of New Dioceses. 
V. On the Consecration of Bishops. 

VI. On Canons. 
VII. On Expenses. 
VIII. On Unfinished Business. 
IX. On Elections. 
X. On the Prayer-Book. 
XI. On Christian Education; and, 
XII. On Memorials of Deceased Members. 
Each to consist of thirteen members. " 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I move to 
amend by inserting before the words "On Canons" 
the words " On the Constitution," 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois, Would it not be better to 
say " On Amendments to the Constitution" ? 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. Very 
well, I will put it in that form. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. No. 3 of the rules of order 
of the House of Bishops provides for a Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution just before their 
Committee on Canons. I understand Judge Com- 
stock to mo ve that we harv e a similar committee, 
and that it be inserted before No. 6 of our Com- 
mittees, that "On Canons." 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York, So that 
the Sixth Committee will be " On Amendments to the 
Constitution, " 

The PRESIDENT, It is proposed that No, 6 of 
the enumeration of committees be "On Amend- 
ments to the Constitution" ; of course, changing the 
subsequent numbers to the end. The question is on 
that amendment. 

The amendment was agreed to, 

Mr. OTIS, of Ilhnois. I move the adoption of the 
fourth rule as amended. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. I was going 
to call attention to another committee — the Commit- 
tee on the Prayer-Book. I thought we were voting 
simply on the amendment to introduce the Commit- 
tee on Amendments to the Constitution. If the 
whole rule has not been adopted, I will ask to say a 
word or two upon the Committee on the Prayer- 
Book. 

The PRESIDENT. We have adopted the whole 
rule, but it can be reconsidered at the request of the 
gentleman with the consent of the House. 
I Mr, McCRADY, of South Carolina, I cannot 
j say that I voted for it, because I thought I voted 
j only for the amendment. But I will not press a 
■ motion to reconsider at the present time ; I will 
j take another opportunity to do so, 
1 The Secretary read the next proposed nile, as f ol- 
j lows : 

"5. The Daily Order of Business shall be as fol- 
i lows : 

j I, Reading the Minutes, 

II, Communications from the President. 

III. Reports from Standing Committees, in the 
j following order : 

j 1. On Elections. 

I 2. On the Admission of New Dioceses. 



22 



8. On the Consecration of Bishops. 

4. On Canons. 

5. On the General Theological Seminary. 

6. On the State of the Church. 

7. On Expenses. 

8. On the Domestic and Foreign Missionary 

Society. 

9. On the Prayer-Book. 

10. On Christian Education. 

11. On Unfinished Business. 

12. On Memorials of Deceased Members ; and 

13. Special Committees in the order of ap- 

pointment. 

IV. Petitions and Memorials. 
V. Motions and Resolutions. 

VI. Business on the Calendar. " 

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky. I move to make 
this rule correspond with the amendment to the 
fourth rule bj^ inserting before "On Canons" the 
words " On Amendments to the Constitution," and 
to change the numbers to correspond. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move that the fifth rule 
as amended be adopted. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows: 

" 6. The Secretary shall keep a Calendar of Busi- 
ness, on which reports from committees, resolutions 
which lie over, and other matters undisposed of, 
shall be placed, in the order in which they are pre- 
sented." 

The rule was adopted. 

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows : 
"7. At 12 o'clock, unless there be an Order of the 
Daj^, or as soon thereafter as the Order of the Day 
shall be disposed of, the business on the Calendar 
shall be taken up and disposed of, in the order in 
which it stands thereon ; and a vote of two-thirds of 
the members present shall be required to take up 
any matter out of its order on the Calendar." 
The rule was adopted. 

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows : 
"8. The House shall proceed to the Order of the 
Day at 12 o'clock precisely, unless dispensed with by 
a vote of two-thirds of all the members present." 
The rule was adopted. 

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows : 
" 9. All resolutions shall be reduced to writing, 
presented to the Secretary, and by him read to the 
House ; and no motion shall be considered before 
the House unless seconded." 
The rule was adopted. 

The Secretaiy read the next rule, as follows : 
"10. If the question under debate contains several 
distinct propositions, the same shall be divided, at 
the request of any member, and a vote taken sepa- 
rately, except that a motion to strike out and in- 
sert shall be indivisible." 
The rule was adopted. 

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows : 
"11. When a question is under consideration, no 
motion shall be received, unless to lay it upon the 
table, to postpone it to a certain time, to postpone it 
indefinitely, to commit it, or to amend it ; and mo- 
tions for anj of these purposes shall have prece- 
dence in the order herein named. If a motion to 
lay on the table an amendment be carried, the mat- 
ter before the House shall be proceeded with as if 
no such amendment had been olf ered. The motions 
to lay upon the table and to adjourn shall be de- 
cided without debate. The motion to adjourn shall 
always be in order. " 

Mr, RACE, of Louisiana. I have a few amend- 
ments to offer to this section of rules of order. 
First. After the words in the second line, " to lay it 
upon the table," insert the words "previous ques- 
tion " ; Secondly. Strike out the whole of the sen- 
tence beginning with the words "if a motion to lay 



f on the table," etc., so that the section as amended 
\ will read : 

j "When a question is under consideration no mo- 
tion shall be received, unless to lay it upon the table, 
the previous question, to postpone it to a certain 
time, to postpone it indefinitely, to commit it, or to 
, amend it ; and motions for any of these purposes 
shall have precedence in the order herein named. 
; Motions to lay upon the table and to adjourn shall 
be decided without debate. The motion to adjourn 
shall always be in order." 

It will be perceived that I propose a striking out 
of the second sentence, and the insertion of the 
I words "the previous question " in the first sentence, 
j I am perfectly well aware that in this House hereto- 
I fore the previous question, which has for its object 
i the stoppage of debate and the bringing of the main 
j question at once to a vote, has been regarded with 
disfavor ; and why? For the simple reason, as I have 
I understood it, that you did not desire to cut off de- 
I bate ; that, after a subject has been discussed until it 
' is threadbare, no portion of this house shall say, 
i ' ' We order now the previous question, having heard 
sufficient debate upon the subject." Now, is there 
I any consistency between that position and this rule 
: of order as it stands before you? You wiU find in 
I the rale of order, as it is proposed to adopt it, that 
; not only you cut off debate, but you may cut it off 
I before it has commenced, if you will. The previous 

■ question is never ordered until debate is exhausted; 
i but here you propose to cut off debate in its incipi- 

ency. You provide that "the motions to lay upon 
i the table and to adjourn shall be decided without 
; debate. " Therefore the very moment that a Deputy 

moves an amendment, however important that 
; amendment, and before any discussion shall have 

■ been had, another Deputy may move, in his seat, 
to lay that amendment on the table, and the vote 

I has to be taken without debate. 

j I say, therefore, there is no consistency between the 
i position that you will never call the previous ques- 
tion (which is a great aid to legislation), and yet 
i will retain a motion to lay upon the table to be 
I decided without debate. You propose, in the sen- 
i tence that I desire to strike out, not only to lay 
I upon the table any amendment without debate, 
I but that the fate of that amendment shall not inter- 
; rupt the rest of the question before the House, 
which is unparliamentary, according to all pre- 
cedents that I know anything about. 

What is the office of a motion to lay on the table ? 
It is when the House is not in a condition, from any 
cause whatever, to consider the question then pend- 
ing ; they desire to lay it over until a more conve- 
nient season, ji^hether it be indefinitely or to a pe- 
riod fixed ; not that you will never entertain it. 
The object of the motion to lay on the table is not 
to take the subject from before the House, but to 
postpone the consideration of that subject until a 
more convenient season. That is the law according 
to all parliamentary authorities. Now you propose 
to substitute that motion for another which all par- 
' liamentary authors introduce to get rid of a sub 
ject ; that is, indefinite postponement. When you 
want to kill a question, to never consider it any more, 
to take it from before the House, the proper motion 
is indefinite postponement, not to lay on the table, 
because to lay it upon the table is to pass it over tem- 
porarily to be called up again ; but an indefinite 
postponement reaches to the extent of killing the 
proposition, of taking it from before the House as 
if it never had been before the House. 

In ordei' to sustain these positions allow me to re- 
fer to a standard authoiity, Mr. Cushing's Manual, 
which, I believe, is now in use in all deliberative 
bodies. Mr. Cushing says, in Section 67 : 

"in order to suppress a question altogether, with- 
out coming to a direct vote upon it, in such a man- 



2S 



ner that it cannot be renewed, the proper motion is 
for indefinite postponement ; — 

Not to lay upon the table. 
— "that is, a postponement or adjournment of the 
question, without fixing any day for resuming it. 
The effect of this motion, if decided in the affirma- 
tive, is to quash the pi'oposition entii-ely ; as an in- 
definite adjournment is equivalent to a dissolution, 
or the continuance of a suit without day is a dis- 
continuance of it. A negative decision has no effect 
whatever. " 

Thus you perceive that Mr. Gushing says the 
proper mode of taking a subject from before the 
House is by an indefinite postponement. Now let 
us see what he says on the subject of laying on the 
table. Sections 68, 69, and 71 : 

" If the Assembly is willing to entertain and con- 
sider a question, but not at the time when it is 
moved, the proper course is either to postpone the 
subject to another day, or to order it to lie on the 
table. 

" When the members individually want more in- 
formation than they possess at the time a question 
is moved, or desire further time for reflection and 
examination, the proper motion is to postpone the 
subject to such other day as will answer the views 
of the Assembly. 

"If the Assembly has something else before it 
which claims its present attention, and is, therefore, 
desirous to postpone a particular proposition until 
that subject is disposed of, such postponement may 
be effected by means of a motion that the matter in 
question lie on the table. If this motion prevails, 
the subject so disposed of may be taken up at any- 
time afterwards and considered when it may suit 
the convenience of the Assembly." 

So, you perceive, that laying on the table is 
simply disposing of a matter temporarily, and it is 
liable to be called up at any future time when the 
Assembly desires to do so. He says in Section 171 : 

"This motion is usually resoi-ted to when the 
Assembly has something else before it which claims 
its present attention, and, therefore, desires to lay 
aside a proposition for a short but indefinite time, 
reserving to itself the power to take it up when 
convenient. This motion takes precedence of and 
supersedes all the other subsidiary motions." 

By "subsidiary motions, " he means motions which 
have for their object to dispose of the main question, 
whether temporarily or permanently. It seems to 
me, then, Mr. President, that there is no valid ob- 
jection to the first amendment proposed by me 
inserting the previous question. It simply gives to 
the House the right, when in its discretion it will 
exercise it, to bring a vote upon the main question, 
which main question will be the then pending 
amendment not ali-eady adopted. There can be no 
objection to this in principle, inasmuch as you pro- 
pose now and have in the past rules of this House 
conferred the right to dispose of any amendment 
by a motion to lay it on the table without debate. 

The second amendment which I propose is to 
strike out the provision that, whe're a motion to la}^ 
upon the table an amendment is carried, the House 
will proceed with the subject-matter under discus- 
sion the same as if that motion had not pi-evailed, 
taking with it the amendment. That is a bad rule 
for legislation. There is no object in that sort of 
proc^ure. If you desire to reject an amendment 
vote " nay," do not move to lay it on the table. It 
is disrespectful to start with, and it is bad legislation 
in any point of view. The object of laying on the 
table, you perceive, is simply to postpone the con- 
sideration of a matter to a future period, and, there- 
fore, it is done without debate. But when 
you propose to lay on the table as a means 
of killing a matter, and to say that that 
shall be done without debate, it is not correct. 



You take the idea, which is a correct idea, of de- 
ciding the motion to lay on the table without de- 
bate, because it is simply postponing the considera- 
tion of the question ; but you incorporate it here so 
as to cut off debate upon that proposition now and 

! for ever. That is not parliamentary ; but that is 
what you propose to do. You have heretofore i"e- 
fused to allow the previous question upon the 
ground that you will not cut off debate, and yet 
you take the subject-matter from before the House 

i without debate upon a motion to lay on the table. 
You have got to strike out that clause, I think, 
whatever standpoint you take. If you reject the 

: insertion of the previous question, on the ground 
that you are not wilhng to cut off debate, you cer- 

I tainly must sustain my second amendment to stiike 

! out the sentence which cuts off debate, by a motion 

i to lay on the table new matter which never has 

1 been discussed. 

I Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Mr. President, I 
1 presume that this question will be divided before we 
! take a vote upon it. The gentleman presents two 
j separate and independent propositions. One is that 
I we adopt as a i-ule of order the previous question. 
[ That is a matter for very grave consideration, and I 
I hope that this House will pause and deliberate be- 
I fore we agree to put upon our rules of order that 
j rule which has been so often designated as the " gag- 
j law." The whole sum and substance of the pre- 
: vious question is that a majority of the House can 
I at any moment by a vote stop all debate, and pre- 
: vent that discussion which I think in free govern- 
1 ments and in a free church ought always to prevail, 
j We have been practising under what may be con- 
I sidered the rule of the Senate of the United 
j States. The Senate and the House of Representa- 
I tives differ with regard to the previous question. The 
House of Representatives have the previous question 
: as one of their rules, and any of us who have read 
I the debates of jDongress have seen how often the 
i exercise of that rule has been complained of by the 
I minority. Anything can be forced through the 
i House without a moment of notice, without its 
I being Imown that the debate is about to be stopped, 
j when many members wish to be heard and when 
I many members ought to be heard. The Senate has 
i never adopted such a rule, but the way that they 
have practised in regard to this question, as I under- 
stand it, is to appoint a time when a vote shall be 
taken. Then all have notice that the vote will be 
taken at such a time, and can act accordingly. 
I That has been the practice of this House hereto- 
1 fore. We all recollect, who were members of 
I the last General Convention, how frequently that 
; rule was put into force. After discussion had 
1 been carried on for a certain length of time, 
i when it was the feeling of the House that the 
matter had been worn threadbare, or that at all 
; events it was time to take a vote, we did not adopt 
! this peremptory rule of closing the debate rastanter, 
j but we fixed a time, say "to-morrow at 10 o'clock" 
! or "this afternoon at 4 o'clock," when debate should 
close upon the question and the vote be taken. It 
strikes me that that is more in accordance with that 
principle of the Constitution of this Convention 
I which prescribes that there shall be freedom of de- 
j bate. How can there be freedom of debate if a ma- 
i jority of this House can, at any moment and without 
any warning, close debate, and shut the mouth of 
every member of the House who wishes to discuss 
i the question? 

I ask, sir, that this question be divided : that we 
j first take the vote on the adoption of the motion of 
I the gentleman from Louisiana, proposing that the 
i previous question be inserted as one of the rules of 
j the House. I think it is a right which we have 
I under parliamentary law, to call for a division of a 
1 question containing distinct propositions. 



The PRESIDENT. Certainly. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. With regard to 
the second proposition, I may have something to 
say upon that when it comes before us. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Mr. President, I 
have an amendment which beai-s on both the ques- 
tions, and which sliould be considei-ed in connection 
with both, and with the permission of the House I 
will read it. It is to be added to the twelfth rule : 

" In order to secure due freedom of debate with 

E roper despatch of business of the House, any mem- 
er may move to reject, amend, or otherwise mod- 
ify any resolution or measure reported for adoption 
by any committee of the House. In debating such 
a motion the members shall not speak more than 
ten minutes each, unless leave be granted by the 
House." 

I have been in this body many years, and I have 
never yet seen the time when, if a gentleman had 
spoken ten minutes, he could not secure an exten- 
sion of his time if he had been talldng sense. Two 
objects are to be kept in view. We are to secure 
and preserve freedom of debate, and, at the same 
time, we ai-e to act so as to facilitate the despatch of 
business. I think the proposition which I submit 
reasonably secures both purposes, and is a fair com- 
promise. 

Several DEPUTIES. Is that proposition in or- 
der ? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
The motion is that, instead of inserting the previous 
question in this rule, we put the provision just read 
in the next rule when we come to it, which is a fair 
proposition ; because, instead of the pi-evious ques- 
tion, it gives us a substitute. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. That is it. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
But I rise to suggest that I do not believe all the Con- 
vention are aware of the fact that the right of a 
minority to protest and debate a question intro- 
duced here by a majority is secured, and that the 
power of a majority to move a measure, and pass it 
without a word being said, is absolutely prohibited 
by the first article of our Constitution. It stands in 
the fore-front of the organic law under which we 
live. I will read the brief words : 

"In all business of the Convention, freedom of 
debate shall be allowed." 

Now, Mr. President, if you insert here these 
two little words "previous question," the con- 
trolling majority of this House can preconcert 
a measure ; a man may rise on the floor here 
and move that measure ; a gentleman by his 
side may second it ; the same party may move 
the previous question ; the party by his side 
may second it. There is nothing for the Convention 
to do. The mover may even make a long speech in 
favor of his measure (which is one of the unjust 
ways of carrying out the previous question), and 
at the close of his speech move the previous question, 
and not a man in the House has a right to say a 
woi-d if a majority of the House adopt the previous 
question ; and, no ma,tter what the objection may 
be, if there be a numerical majority to carry it, it 
will be carried through the House, without the 
privilege of a word being said by any one opposed 
to it. Is that living up to the Constitution which 
guarantees to us freedom of debate ? This is a mat- 
ter, Mr, President, which the minority, upon all 
questions, are mainly interested in. Hence it is 
guarded by the Constitution, and therefore it is 
that I appeal to this House, and to the majority 
of this House, that they do not impose any 
such unjust rule upon any minority on any 
question. I have seen a motion made in a delib- 
erative body, a long speech made in favor of the 
proposition, and at the close of that long speech in 
favor of it, a motion to adopt the previous question, 



the previous question seconded, no one allowed even 
to coi-rect statements of fact which were misstate- 
ments, no one allowed to make an argument against 
it, and a vote forced upon that body adopting the 
proposition, without allowing a syllable to be said 
on either side. Now, the gentleman from Louisiana 
says that the same thing is allowed by the 
motion to lay a proposition on the table. 
On the contrary, you ca,n never compel a 
body to accept or reject any proposition with- 
out debate by moving to lay it upon the table. 
They have neither adopted it nor rejected it when 
they have laid it upon the table. Under this rule 
it may be so with an amendment ; but when a mo- 
tion is laid on the table it is simply a declaration 
that the body does not wish to discuss that question 
at that time • it does not wish to vote either " yea " 
or "najr." It does not wish to adopt it or reject it, 
but lets it drop for the present to take up something- 
else. 

I repeat, that the insertion of the words "previ- 
ous question " is a distinct violation of the rule of 
our Constitution, obligatory upon us all, that free- 
dom of debate shall be allowed. Of course we are 
permitted to make our rules of order — we may 
limit debate, we may limit the time of remarks, we 
may fix the time when we shall take a vote — for all 
questions in a convention are always subject to the 
vote of the convention, and under their control. 

The PRESIDENT. I considered the proposition 
offered by Mr. Ruggles to be, in the way he pre- 
sented it, as simply argumentative. If it is an ad- 
ditional rule, his reading of it was to show cause 
why you should not adopt the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Louisiana ; but it camiot be 
in order unless it be moved as a part of the eleventh 
rule. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. WeU, I make it 
a part of the eleventh rule. 

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Ruggles says now that 
he offers it as part of the eleventh rule. Therefore 
it is in order as the first amendment to that rule to 
be voted on. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I think, with 
due submission to the Chair, that where there are 
two amendments, separate and independent in 
themselves, we must take the vote separately on the 
first amendment that is offered. You take, of 
course, the vote on an amendment to an amend- 
ment before you vote on the amendment itself; but 
when there are two separate and distinct amend- 
ments to a matter before the House, you take a vote 
on the first amendment, adopt that or reject it, and 
then take a vote on the second, because they are 
independent of each other. We may or may not 
vote down the motion for the previous question. If 
we vote it down, then the motion of the gentleman 
I from New York will be perfectly in order. But we 
ought to have the opportunity of voting upon the 
previous question first, as a separate and independ- 
ent amendment to the rule of order which is now 
before the House. 

The PRESIDENT. I consider that it cannot 
otherwise be in order. That motion of the gentle- 
man from New York was an amendment to an 
amendment. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh.- I did not so un- 
dei"stand. I understood it moi'e as a reason why 
' we should vote down the previous question, because, 
if we do vote it down, the gentleman from New 
York then intends to introduce another amendment 
which will answer the purpose, 
i The PRESIDENT. That is logically so ; but in 
I this science of rules of order, as I understand, noth- 
ing can be offered when one amendment is present- 
ed, except new matter, as an amendment to that 
amendment. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. If 



25 



i apprehend the case aright, the proposition of Mr. 
Ruggles takes the place of the motion to insert the 
previous question. Put into technical legal form, 
according to parliamentary rules, Ms motion is 
this: "That the words 'previous question' be 
stricken out, and that there be substituted therefor " 
the words named by him at the end of the section. 

The PRESIDENT. He could not have made that 
motion, because the words "previous question" 
have not been put in. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. It 
is an amendment to an amendment, I understand. 
When an amendment is offered to an amendment, 
it may be offered in several ways. It may be first 
adding to the amendment, or it may be striking out 
the amendment and substituting other matter for 
it, either of which propositions is proper. Gentle- 
men are in the habit of very loosely saying, "I 
move this as an amendment to that." How ? Will 
you add this to that, or put tliis in place of that ? 
The motion of Mr. Ruggles here is to amend the 
motion to insert the previous question by inserting 
instead of it the words of his proposition. If I am 
wrong, the gentleman who made the motion will 
correct me. When we have adopted this amend- 
ment to the amendment, if we do so, the previous 
question is wiped out. We come to the question, 
then, whether we will incorporate the amendment 
to the amendment into the oi'iginal proposition. 
That, I think, is familiar parliamentary law. 

The PRESIDENT. The first question is on the 
amendment to the amendment, offered by the gen- 
tleman from New York (Mr. Ruggles). 

The Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Something 
more must be done if you adopt that course, for if 
you read the rule with that insertion the gentleman 
will see that it is impossible to adopt it in that form. 
It will be, " When a question is under consideration, 
no motion shall be received, unless to lay it upon the 
table; and in order to secure freedom of debate 
with proper despatch of the business of the House, 
any member may move to reject,, amend, or other- 
wise modify any resolution or measure reported for 
adoption by any committee of the House. " " You can- 
not insert it in that form, I think. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. It is pro- 
posed to go in at the end of the rule. 

Mr. SHEFPEY, of Virginia. Mr. President, I 
understand that the eleventh rule is before the 
House. The text of the eleventh rule is the matter 
before the House. The gentleman from Louisiana 
moves to insert in that text, after the fii'st clause as 
to the order of motions, the words "the previous 
question. " That is an amendment to the text pro- 
posed. The only amendment to that amendment 
that can be admitted is to substitute something else 
for it that would be congruous to the text, or to 
leave out some words in it, or to reject them. I 
say, therefore, with due respect to the Chair, that the 
Chair ought to rule out for the present what is pro- 
osed as an amendment to the amendment, simply 
ecause it is a departure from the rule of an amend- 
ment to an amendment, inasmuch as it does not pro- 
pose to modify the amendment in any way, but 
proposes simply to insert an entirely different pro- 
position. The eleventh rule provides for the order 
of motions. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I withdraw my 
proposition for the present. 

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Ruggles having with- 
drawn his proposition, the question is on the first 
amendment of Mr. Race. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
move an indefinite postponement of the amend- 
ment to insert the previous question. 

The PRESIDENT. Under our present rules, I 
think that postponement would carry the whole 
subject. 



Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Then I withdraw the motion. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend- 
ment to insert "the previous question" after the 
word "table" in the second line of the eleventh 
i rule. 

The amendment was rejected. 
! The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the 
second amendment of the gentleman from Louisi- 
ana to strike out the following words: " If a motion 
to lay on the table an amendment be carried, the 
; matter before the House shall be proceeded with as 
if no such amendment had been offered. " 
The amendment was rejected. 
The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the 
adoption of the eleventh rule as reported. 
! The rule was adopted. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Now, I offer as an 
additional rule, to come in after Rule 11th, the pro- 
position which I submitted before : 

" In order to secure due freedom of debate, with 
proper despatch of the business of the House, any 
member may move to reject, amend, or otherwise 
modify any resolution or measure reported for adop- 
tion by any committee of the House. In debating 
I such motion, the members shall not speak more than 
ten minutes each, imless leave be granted by the 
House." 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I raise the point 
I of order whether that motion is now in order. We 
j have already decided to take these rules seriatim. 
We must go through with them as they are printed 
and presented to us. Then, when we are through, it 
will be in order for any member to introduce an 
additional rule. But if we begin to introduce ad- 
ditional rules now, we shall throw the whole thing 
into disorder. I hope we shall go straight through 
just as we resolved to do. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. It occurs to 
me that any proposition which is germane to the 
question before us, that is, to the rules of order, 
may come in before we proceed with the succeeding 
rules, because we are now adopting a new set of 
rules ; and this matter is germane to the question 
we now have under consideration. Therefore we 
are not to wait imtil we go through the whole, and 
then take it up. 

Rev. Dr. MINNIGERODE, of Virginia. Is the 
proposition to limit gentlemen to ten minutes on 
any subject that may come up ? 

The PRESIDENT. I am not able to answer. 

Rev. Dr. MINNIGERODE, of Virginia. If it is, 
I have simply to say that it would be an excellent 
thing, no doubt, to teach every member of this Con- 
vention to confine himself to ten minutes ; but the 
General Convention is not a good school for that 
kind of training, and all experience has shown that 
the effect of making such a rule would be to limit 
the f I'eedom of debate. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend- 
ment offered as an additional rule by the Deputy 
from New York (Mr. Ruggles). 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. There 
is nothing in this proposition but the ten-minutes' 
rule. All the rest we have now under the rules of 
the House. It is a mere question now, therefore, 
whether we will adopt the ten-minute rule. I sup- 
pose the Convention is not prepared to do it. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The Secretary read the next proposed rale, as 
follows : 

"12. There shall be no debate upon a resolution 
which proposes to refer any matter to a committee, 
or upon a motion to recommit any subject which 
has been before a committee. And if objection be 
made to the consideration of a resolution designed 
; for the action of the House, without a reference to a 
I committee, it shall lie over, and come up the next 



26 



day as unfinished business. But the member who 
offers such resolution or motion may speak five 
minutes, for the purpose of explaining- its object." 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I rise for inform- 
ation. The eleventh i-ule provides that a motion to 
commit shall be one of the motions debatable. 
Now, here, it is true, the word "resolution is used ; 
but is it perfectly clear what the difference is ? A 
resolution to be committed is not debatable, while 
a motion to commit is debatable. I rise to ask 
what the difference is, and whether it is sufficiently 
clear that there is any difference ? 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. The object of the 
rule was to prevent two debates on the same subject 
in the House. A member rises and submits a 
resolution, which, undei- the rules of the House, 
ought to go to a committee. He is allowed 
by this pi-oposed rule five minutes to explain the 
object of his resolution. Thereupon, as a standing- 
order of the House, the resolution goes to a com- 
mittee without further debate. When the commit- 
tee has acted upon it, it comes back, and then the 
gentleman from Maryland can speak at large. So 
upon a question which has been once before a com- 
mittee and comes back for the consideration of the 
House, and for some technical want of form, or for 
some reason or other, the House desires to send it 
back to the committee, the motion to commit is to 
be submitted under this rule without debate. The 
result is that when a measure is perfected the sub- 
ject will be open for legitimate debate, and for the 
final action of the House. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I see what was 
in the mind of the committee, and yet it is not at all 
clear to my mind, and I will state my difficulty once 
more. I will read the twelfth rule as it is printed : 

" There shall be no debate upon a resolution which 
proposes to refer any matter to a committee — 

Not a matter that "comes from a committee. If I 
make a motion, if I oft'er a resolution to this House 
and s&y that that resolution is to be committed to a 
committee, I cannot debate it, nor can I upon a mo- 
tion to recommit it. Again : 

" And if objection be made to the consideration of 
a resolution " — 

That is a separate subject altogether — 
— "designed for the action of the House without a 
reference to a committee, it shall lie over and come 
up the next day as unfinished business. But the 
member who offers such resolution " — 

What resolution < A resolution that he wants 
passed without sending it to a committee. • 
— "such resolution or motion may speak five min- 
utes. " 

Here are two separate things. When a member 
offers a resolution, and couples that resolution with 
a proposition to send it to a committee, he cannot 
debate it ; but if he offers a resolution and does not 
say it is to be sent to a committee, then he may ex- 
plain his views for five minutes. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Mr. President, 
really taking the context, I tliink there is no ground 
for the objection of my friend from Maryland; but, 
to obviate all possibility of criticism, 'I move to 
transpose the sentence, ' But the member who of- 
fers such resolution or motion may speak five min- 
utes, for the purpose of explaining its object," to 
that part of the rule after the word " committee " 
in the third Line, so that the rule will read : 

" There shall be no debate upon a resolution which 
proposes to refer any matter to a committee, or 
upon a motion to recommit any subject which has 
been before a committee. But the member who of- 
fers such resolution or motion may speak five min- 
utes for the purpose of explaining its object." 

The other clause of the Rule has respect to business 
that ought properly upon objection to go on the 
Calendar, and therefore a speech of five minutes on 



that is not necessary. I move therefore to transpose 
the last clause so as to make it the second, and the 
second clause the third. 

RECESS. 

The PRESIDENT. I ask the gentleman to give 
way that we may receive an interesting communica- 
tion from the Secretary. 

The SECRETARY. I wffl announce to the Con- 
vention that lunch is prepared for the members of 
the Convention, and is now ready, and that a mo- 
tion for a brief recess for the purpose of giving at- 
tention to it I tliink, with all due deference, will be 
in order. 

Mr, WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I make the motion 
tha.t half an hour's recess be taken. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the House accord- 
ingly took a recess for half an hour. At the expira- 
tion of that time the President resumed the chair. 

PRINTING OF SIEMORIALS. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I wish to present 
a memorial, and move that it be referred and printed 
to save the time of the house, and I take this course 
after consultation with various members of the Con- 
vention, 

The PRESIDENT, The gentleman from Texas 
moves to suspend the business which was being dis- 
cussed before the recess to receive a paper, and 
the Chair will suggest that there are business matters 
of importance to be acted on promptly, and which 
can be attended to during the suspension. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I move that the 
memorial from the diocese of Texas, touching the 
setting off of a portion of its territory into mission- 
ary jm'isdictions, which I now present, be referred 
to the Committee on Canons, and ordered to be 
printed, and a sufficient number of copies being 
printed to be distributed to the House. 
! Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Perhaps the 
memorial of Cahfomia, wliich was suspended when 
the order of the day was called for, had better be 
included in that motion. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I wiU include the 
memorial of California in my motion, I move 
that the memorials of California and Texas be re- 
ferred to the Committee on Canons, and ordered to 
be printed in sufficient number to distribute copies 
to the House. 

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky, I think it would 
be an unnecessaryexpense to print all the formal mat- 
ter of these memorials. The principal part is very 
short. If we begin printing memorials at their en- 
tire leng-th, we shall add to the expenses of the 
General Convention. I move that only such por- 
tions as are necessary to an understanding of the 
pm-port of the papers be printed. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I will explain, so 
far as the memorial of our diocese is concerned, that 
it has no f ormahty about it, save a dozen lines. The 
rest consists of the facts stated for the judgment of 
this Convention. It is not a long memorial. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
of the Deputy from Texas. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. This is es- 
tablishing a precedent which may give us trouble 
before we get through the sessions of this body. I 
think there is a growing feeling of antagonism to 
I this great use of paper and type. The expense of 
I it is never estimated at the moment, but in the ag- 
I gregate it amounts to a very great deal, and I think 
, this body should be careful'as to the expenditure of 
money where it can be avoided. 

It seems to me that these memorials have only 
one office, and that is to have their contents sub- 
mitted to the deliberation of this body, while the 



27 



subject of which they are the predicate is being dis- 
cussed. If these memorials are referred to the 
proper committees, and the subject is proposed for 
action by these committees, if the gentlemen who 
bring the memorials here read them to us as part of 
their speeches, the whole House gets the full pos- 
session of their contents at the time. If these me- 
morials are printed, they wiP be taken home and 
probably will not be on hand at the time the debate 
comes lip : in most instances the reading of them 
will be deferred until the time when the debate does 
come up, and we shall find that the mind of the 
House will be probably less fully informed on the 
subject than if at the time the discussion takes place 
the gentlemen from Texas and California would 
rise, and, as part of the discussion, here read the 
memorials to the House. We know what the sub- 
ject-matter will be. We know that it is as to the 
division of dioceses. 

Rev. Mr. ROG-ERS, of Texas. Not the division. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Well, we 
shall be able to comprehend the matter of the me- 
morials as they are read. It is not proposed to take 
any action at this particular time. One of them is 
in print ah'eady ; it was read this morning from a 
printed copy, as I observed. It seems to me that, 
instead of setting the precedent of printing these 
long memorials, and incurring a heavy expendi- 
ture thereby, it would be far better when the time 
comes for those who represent the memorialists to 
read the memorials, and then they would be open 
for discussion. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Ken- 
tucky (Mr. Comwall) suggested that only the im- 
portant parts of the memorials be princed. I did 
not observe that he made any motion. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Mr. President, 
when the memorial of California was being read 
this morning, objection was taken thereto upon the 
double ground, fii^st, that it took the time of this 
House, and next, that it could not be heard, and the 
objector suggested that these important memorials 
— memorials that have been before the G-eneral Con- 
vention substantially for nine years — should be 
printed, that the prayer of these dioceses might be 
understood, and that it might be acted upon with 
some degi'ee of understanding, and candor, and 
caution. Then I objected. I desired that the 
memorial of Texas should be heard upon this floor 
from my lips or the lips of the Secretary ; but on 
consultation with the different membei-s of the j 
Committee on Canons and various members of j 
this Convention, I have come to the conclusion I 
that Texas will he content if her memorial can be 
printed and put into the hands of the members of • 
the Convention, and then, if she can, be heard at the j 
proper time vrithout an attempt even to read it. 
In order to facilitate business, I asked a suspension 
of the order of the day that this might be done, 
and now I ask that my motion to print and send to 
the Committee on Canons may not be negatived, 
but that it may be granted, and, by-and-by, when 
it comes before you, I will take a few moments to 
explain it. 

Rev. Mr. EASTON, of Cahfomia. I beheve a 
sufficient number of the California memorials are 
printed already for the information of the House. 

The PRESIDENT. Then I suppose the gentleman 
from Texas withdraws his motion as to the Cali- 
fornia memorial. ! 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Yes. My motion 
is only to print the memorial from Texas, and to 
refer both memorials to the Committee on Canons, t 

The motion was agreed to. | 

RECEPTION OF CANADIAiSr CLERGY. | 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. In be- i 



half of the Committee appointed at the last annual 
Convention- 
Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I rise to a 
question of order. The regular business was only 
suspended for one specific subject, and other busi- 
ness is not in order. 

The PRESIDENT. No ; it was suspended for 
several purposes. I distinctly announced myself 
that I had several things to bring before the House, 
mattere of detail, but which it is very important to 
dispose of. If the gentleman from New Jersey will 
pardon me, I will bring these mattei's to the notice 
of the House now. 

There has been put in my hands a paper adopted 
at a meeting of the Provincial Synod of the Eccle- 
siastical Province of Canada. There is a delegation 
here expecting to present this paper to the House. 
The Metropolitan of Canada also is here desiring to 
I present an address to the two Houses of the General 
I Convention, and he wants a time fixed when this 
' can be done. I ask the House now to fix a time and 
to appoint a committee to wait upon these gentle- 
men and inform them of the time. 
Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that 
: to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, it be the special order of 
■ the day to receive these gentlemen and hear the ad- 
dress of the Metropolitan of Canada, and also to have 
I the address of the Synod read, and also that a 
' committee be appointed to wait upon them. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Did I un- 
derstand the Chair to sav that these gentlemen from 
i Canada had a memorial from the Chm'ch in Canada 
I in relation to bringing our body and theirs more 
closelv together i' 

The" PRESIDENT. I did not state the purpose of 
the paper ; only that there was a paper. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Then I 
move the appointment of the committee which was 
j desired bv the Chair. 

i The PRESIDENT. The appointment of a com- 
I mittee to cari-y out the purpose indicated by the mo- 
i tion of Dr. Mead is also moved. The Chair will put 
the question on the motion as thus amended. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the President ap- 
pointed Rev. Dr. Rudder, of Pennsylvania; Mr. 
Fish, of New York: and Mr. Ruggles, of New York, 
as the committee. 

NEW DIOCESE IN NEW JERSEY. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. In be- 
half of the Committee appointed at the last Annual 
Convention of the Diocese of New Jersey, I present 
the papers touching the proposed division of the 
Diocese of New Jersey, and I move that these papers 
be referred to the Committee on the Admission of 
New Dioceses. 
The motion was agreed to. 

HYMNAL MEMORIAL. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. May I be 
allowed, Mr. President, a word of explanation ? The 
delegation from Pennsylvania have a memorial from 
that Diocese to the General Convention. They are 
not prepared, as it is not now in order, to present 
that memorial, and they have not as yet re- 
ceived any certified copy of the memorial. 
My object is only to make an explanation 
that certain documents connected with this 
memorial were put into the hands of the 
Secretary of this House, and they; have been distrib- 
uted throughout the House. I wish to call attention 
to this fact, or otherwT.se the documents may be 
passed over. They are relative to reports of the 
Committee on the llevision of the Hymn-Book. I 
find that the Secretary of the House has caused 
copies to be placed in eveiy pew. At the proper 
time, when it is in order, I shall take the liberty of 



28 



presenting the memorial from the Diocese of Penn- 
sylvania. 

HOURS OF SITTING. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, 
has any time been fixed for the sessions of the 
House ? 

The PRESIDENT. Not yet. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that the 
sessions be from 10 o'clock in the morning until 
4 in the afternoon, allowing half an hour for recess. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I move 
to amend that the recess be from half -past 1 to 2 
o'clock. 

The amendment was agreed to. 
The motion as amended was agreed to. 

SECRETARY AND TREASURER. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I offer the 
following resolution, and I move that it be referred j 
to the Committee on Canons for consideration and 
report : 

"Resolved, That the following be added to the 
standing orders : 

"'That the Secretary of the House of Deputies 
and the Treasurer of the Convention, when not re- 
turned as Deputies to the Convention, shall be mem- 
bers of this House, with the right to speak as to the 
subjects of their respective offices, but without the 
right to vote.' " 

The Secretary now is not a member of the House, 
but frequently he is necessitated to make explana- 
tions. The Treasurer of the Convention is not a 
member, but he should be here, and it is necessary 
for him sometimes to make explanations as to mat- 
ters connected with his office. That he should be 
allowed to do, and I make the motion that this re- 
solution be referred to the Committee on Canons 
to consider and report whether it is advisable. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to refer the reso- 
lution to the Committee on Canons. 

The motion to refer was agreed to. 

ENGLISH CHURCH CONGRESS. 

The following message (No. 3) was received from 
the House of Bishops: 

"The House of Bishops informs the House of 
Deputies that it has appointed the Bishops of 
Indiana, Minnesota, and Central New York as the 
Joint Committee on the part of this House to reply 
to the communication received yesterday from the 
President of the Church Congress, sitting at Brigh- 
ton, England." 

The SECRETARY. I can state to the House that 
the following message will be sent this afternoon : 

New York, October 8, 1874. 
"The General Convention reciprocates the greet- 
ing of the Church Congress, and prays for the unity 
of the whole Church in the faith of our Lord Jesus. " 
Bishop of Indiana, 

Chairman Joint Committee. 

rules of order. 

Several Deputies called for the order of the day. 

The PRESIDENT. The order of the day is called 
for. The twelfth proposed rule was under consider- 
ation at the recess, and Mr. Sheffey, of Virginia, 
had moved an amendment to transpose the last sen- 
tence of the twelfth rule in these words, "But the 
member who offers such resolution or motion may 
speak five minutes, for ,the purpose of explaining its 
object," and insert it after the word "committee" 
in the third line of the text. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I move to 
amend that rule further by adding after the word 



i " over " in the fifth line the following words : un- 
! less two-thirds shall vote to proceed to its immediate 
j consideration." The rule is now that, " if objection 
be made to the consideration of a resolution de- 
I signed for the action of the House, without a ref er- 
j ence to a committee, it shall lie over, and come up 
I the next day as unfinished business. " 

A resolution might be offered which might require 
immediate action. Some provision ought to be 
made by a vote of two-thirds to proceed to its im- 
mediate consideration ; and I therefore move to add 
after the word "over" in the fifth line the words 
" unless two-thirds shall vote to proceed to its imme- 
diate consideration." When a proposition is offered 
to the Convention, any member, as the rule now 
stands, can object to it and defeat it ; but by adding 
the words I propose, two-thirds can vote to consider 
it immediately. In the latter days of this Conven- 
tion very important questions may come up requir- 
ing immediate action, and therefore the House 
ought to have the power by a two-thirds vote, at 
any time, to dispense with this rule. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Will the gentleman 
from Kentucky hear me for a moment ? 
Mr. STEVEi^SON, of Kentucky. Certainly. 
Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Let me suggest the 
insertion, after the words " unfinished business, " in 
the sixth line, of these words : "But by a vote of 
two-thirds of the members present the House may 
at once consider the resolution. " 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I accept that. 
I only want to put the matter in the power .of the 
Convention. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I think the objec- 
tion of the gentleman from Kentucky might be met 
by another rule, but this amendment will answer 
the purpose. 
The amendment was agreed to. 
The twelfth rule as amended was adopted. 
The Secretary read the next rule, as follows : 
"13. All amendments shall be considered in the 
order in which they are moved. When a proposed 
amendment is under consideration, a motion to~ 
amend the same may be made. No after amend- 
ment to such second amendment shall be in order. 
No proposition on a subject different from the one 
under consideration shall be received under color of 
a substitute, " 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. It seems to me that the 
first line of this thirteenth rule expresses that it 
is not true in point of fact that "all amendments 
shall be considered in the order in which they are 
moved." I supposed that the universal action of all 
deliberative bodies was in the reverse order. You 
do not first act on an amendment, and if that 
is lost, then consider an amendment to that amend- 
ment ; but you first put the question on the amend- 
ment to the amendment, and if that is lost, then put 
it on the amendment. Now, this rule provides for 
the other mode of doing business — that you shall 
first put the amendment, and then if that is lost, the 
amendment to the amendment. I apprehend that 
we do not wish to do business in that order ; hence 
I move to amend by inserting the word "reverse " 
after the word "the " in the first line, so as to read, 
" all amendments shall be considered in the reverse 
order in which they are moved." 
Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I do not read 
1 that rule as the gentleman does. It strikes me that 
j the object of the rule is simply to provide that, when 
four or five or two or three single and separate 
amendments are moved to a measure before the 
House, they shall be taken up in the order in which 
j they are moved. It does not apply to the case of 
i an amendment to an amendment. We all know, when 
; that is moved, the vote on the amendment to the 
j amendment must be taken first. That is a matter 
I of course. This rule simply provides that, where 



29 



there are three or four independent amendments 
moved to a measure before the House, the vote 
shall be taken upon those amendments chronologi- 
cally ; that is, in the order in winch they are moved. 
When there is an amendment to an amendment, of 
course the vote will be taken on the amendment 
to the amendment first, and then upon the amend- 
ment, whether amended or otherwise. I think 
there can be no difficulty in the practical carrying 
out of the rule just exactly as it is printed. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. This rule of order 
provides that there shall be but two amendments 
at one time. Where, therefore, do the third and 
foui'th amendments come in ? I should like the 
Deputy from Pittsburgh to give us an example. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. We had one this 
morning, made by the gentleman himself, if I recol- 
lect aright, when*^ he proposed two amendments to 
the eleventh rule. One was to insert the previous 
question, and the other was to strike out a portion 
of the iiile which was printed. There were two in- 
dependent amendments. If they had been moved 
by separate persons, of course one would have had 
to be moved first and the other second. I take it 
this rule simply means that, in a case of that kind, 
the vote shall be taken on the first amendment, and 
then be taken upon the second amendment. There 
can be, of course, only one amendment to an 
amendment. That we understand, and it is 
provided for by this rule. Where there 
is an amendment to an amendment, the 
vote is taken upon the second amendment first, and 
then upon the original amendment. There cannot 
be a third amendment to an amendment, but there 
may be as many amendments to the matter before 
the House as members choose to present for the con- 
sideration of the House ; and it is to prevent the 
confusion which may arise when there have been 
several amendments moved, that it is provided that 
the vote on them shall be taken in their order as 
they have been moved. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I would enquire whether 
it is at all necessary to have that first clause : "All 
amendments shall be considered in the order in 
which they are moved Would it not be a matter 
of course under what may be called the common 
parliamentary law 'i Would it not be the natural 
course of proceeding if there were no such pro- 
vision ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I suggest 
whether, when a gentleman states that he has two 
amendments, it is not a mere matter of courtesy to 
allow them to be announced. He cannot offer one 
until the other is acted upon. I do not understand 
that we can take up a half-dozen amendments, al- 
though a member can notify us of them ; but we 
can vote on one after another. There can be but 
one proposition before us at a time, and an amend- 
ment must be an amendment to that. My friend 
from Louisiana (Mr. Race) presented two amend- 
ments to one rule. He did not offer both so that we 
had them both before us at the same time ; but we 
voted on one and then the other came up. You 
cannot offer two amendments to be before the House 
at once, as I understand, and then have an amend- 
ment made to the first amendment and an amend- 
ment made to the second amendment. There is but 
one amendment that can be offered at a time. By 
strict rule any amendment then that comes before us 
is an amendment to that, and therefore the language 
here, I think, should be, "in the reverse order." By 
courtesy, we had two amendments before us, but 
it was not by strict rule. We act on one, and then 
on the other. Now, if I offer an amendment, and a 
gentleman from another diocese offers another 
amendment, are the two to remain before as, pari 
passu, until we choose to decide for one or the other 
or both ? Not at all. Until one amendment is de- 



cided, nothing is proper but a n amendment to that 
Therefore this should be " in the reverse order." 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Mr. President, It 
is not out of order to move successive amendments 
to a pending proposition. It is the order of parlia- 
mentary bodies to consider them in the order in 
which they are moved ; and this rule is as old as 
Parliament itself. A member may rise and move 
an am^endment. Another member may rise and 
I move another amendment. It is the duty of the 
! speaker to entertain the first amendment, laying 
the second aside, and when the House is ready to 
! consider that amendment, to proceed to its consid- 
! eration. Before the House of Representatives of 
: the United States there are oftentimes a dozen 
: amendments pending, or rather submitted for suc- 

■ cessive consideration. 

i There is another form of amendment where a blank 
; is to be put in. For instance, a resolution is offered : 
i "Resolved, That the next session of this General 

Convention shall be held in the city of ; " to 

i fill that blank is in the nature of an amendment to 
: the text. The first place named will be first voted 
on, and the second place named next, and the third 
and fourth in the order in which they were pro- 

■ posed. It has been the rule of this House since it 
: was organized, I am informed, certainly it is an old 
i rule of the House, merely to guide the speaker 
' or the President in the oVder in which he shall 
I put questions to the House. It has no respect 

whatever to amendments to amendments. That 
' class of amendments is provided for in the text of 
I the rule itself. I think the introduction of the 
I word "reverse" here would invert the order of 
parliamentary proceedings, for, as I say, the estab- 
lished rule of Parliament is, for instance in filling a 
blank, to take the vote on the fii'st thing named, and 
I so on until you run through them all. 
! The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend- 
ment proposed by the Deputy from Louisiana (Mr. 
Race) to insert the word "reverse." 
The amendment was rejected, 
i Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I move 
! to amend the pending rule of order by inserting, 
i after the third sentence ending " shall be in order," 
: the words : 

i "When an amendment to an amendment is 
; under consideration, a substitute for the whole 
i matter may be received. " 

i I called attention yesterday to the change which 
' had been made in these proposed rules by the 
i omission of the words which I have just read ; and 
it was then answered that parliamentary usage 
; recognized the right of a member to propose a sub- 
stitute for the whole matter. That was given as the 
i reason for its omission. But it seems to me that 
this is not a reason which shotdd weigh with us so 
as to prevent these words being restored. I wish 
< simply to have the words restored, and have the 
i rale of order read as it read three years ago. The 
' House of Bishops have this as a part of their rales 
of order, and as far as parliamentary usage is con- 
cerned, it seems to me that the doctors are by no 
means agreed as to what is parliamentary usage ; 
i and this rule might be interpreted, I think, as indi- 
cating that no such substitute should be received on 
; the ground that this body had formally expunged 
these words. I am in favor of restoring the words 
on the ground that they were a part of the rules of 
order three years ago, and on that account, if on no 
other, it is desirable to have them put in again. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. That clause which 
is now proposed to be reinserted was in the old rule, 
" That when an amendment to an amendment is un- 
der consideration, a substitute for the whole matter 
1 may be received." The rule just in advance of that 
declares " no amendment after a second amendment 
' shaU be entertained, "and that provision of the old 



rule was Imocked in the head by allowing an amend- ' 
ment to an amendment to an amendment by way of 
substitute for the whole matter. Now, sir, 
I say that every evil wliich the experience 1 
and wisdom of hundreds of years have discovered 
in going beyond the second degree by way of amend- 
ment is to be found in this very proposition. What 
is it .'' A proposition is introduced ; an amendment 
to that proposition is brought before the House ; an 
amendment to the amendment is brought before the 
House ; and then, when the House is in a condition i 
to vote intelligently upon the entire subject, thei-e 
is inti'oduced, slap-dash, a grand overslaughing 
proposition to take the entire subject from before | 
the considei'ation of the House. \ 

It may be that there is benefit by mere brute i 
force, under the power of an overwhelming major- j 
ity, in carrying a proposition over the heads of all 
pi-inciples and rules in the manner allowed by the j 
former practice of the House ; but on this floor I | 
have seen the deliberate views and intentions of j 
membei-s of the House overwhelmed and crushed by j 
the introduction of what is called a substitute, de- [ 
priving members of an opportunity of voting upon ! 
the propositions as they were debated, as they were I 
understood, in succession, until they reached the I 
grand main proposition. ' 

Now, what is gained by such a departure from all ! 
parliamentary law as this ? What does the experi- i 
ence of parliamentarians say ^ foi', talk as you j 
choose, a substitute is an amendment in the third I 
degree. Gushing says : j 

"Every amendment which can be proposed, | 
whether by striking out or inserting, or striking ! 
out and inserting, is itself susceptible of amend- ! 
ment ; but there can be no amendment of an ; 
amendment to an a.mendment ; this would be such j 
a piling of questions one upon another, as would 
lead to great embarrassment; and as the line must be i 
drawn somewhere, it has been fixed by usage after 
the amendment to the amendment. The object, 
which is proposed to be eflfected by such a proceed- 
ing, must be sought by rejecting the amendment to 
the amendment, in the form in which it is proposed, 
and then moving it again in the form in which it is 
wished to be amended, in which it is only an amend- 
ment to an amendment ; and in order to accom- 
plish this, he who desires to amend an amendment 
should give notice that, if rejected in the form in 
wliich it is presented, he shall move it again in the 
form in which he desires to have it adopted." 

There seems to be in the minds of members on the 
floor some magical idea connected with this word 
"substitute." Why, sir, there is no such thing as a ! 
substitute in parliamentary phrase; it is only an j 
amendment by way of striking out and inserting, j 
and nothing else. If you have an original proposi- i 
tion, you can strike out all after the enacting clause j 
and insert something else. That is a substitute. Or, | 
if it be as an amendment to an amendment, you j 
move to strike out all after the first word in the 
amendment and insert something else. That is an I 
amendment to an amendment ; it is not a substitute I 
in the sense of being at all different from an amend- ! 
ment to an amendment. All parliamentary motions ! 
to improve a proposition are by way of amend- i 
ment ; it may be by substituting one text | 
for another, hut it is still an amendment. 
I say, therefore, that there is no parliamentary 
propriety or logic in this provision of the old rule j 
which, as all parliamentaiians say, tends to pile j 
question upon question and to breed confusion in 
the mind of the House, instead of deliberation and ! 
proper decision. I think that the amended rule j 
ought to be adopted. I move to amend it by 
striking out the last word "substitute" and insert- I 
ing "amendment." j 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I should like to I 



ask the gentleman from Virginia if the language of 
the last sentence ought not to be corrected so as to 
read : 

"No proposition on a subject different from the 
one under consideration shall be received under 
color of a substitute, but a proposition on the same 
subject may be received." 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move to strike 
out "substitute " and insert "amendment," and I 
will state the reason why that clause is there. A 
proposition may be so totally changed by amend- 
ment as to have no shred of the original idea in it. 
Various examples are given in the books on the 
subject where the entire purpose and object of an 
original proposition has been changed by that par- 
liamentary device an amendment. I understand, 
however, that it has been the rule of this House — 
and I consider it a proper rule — that amendments 
shall be germane to the subject under consideration ; 
and this last clause was designed only to convey 
the idea that no proposition on a subject different 
from the one under consideration shall be received 
by way of "substitute," as the word is here, 
but it should be "by way of amendment." 
This is in conformity with the rules of par- 
liamentary proceeding in a large majority of the 
legislative bodies of the United States, it is not 
the rule of the House of Commons. If the House 
choose to fall back upon the principle of the House 
of Commons, and allow adroit parliamentary man- 
oeuvres to withdraw from the attention and con- 
sideration of the House the main idea of the origi- 
nal proposition by way of amendment, they will 
leave out that clause ; but if the House intend to 
adhere to the mle that no amendment which is not 
pertinent or germane to the original proposition 
shall be e'ntertained, then they will retain this clause 
in the rule. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Do I un- 
derstand that the gentleman from Virginia pro- 
poses to change the text of the rule ? 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Yes. I move to 
strike out the word " substitute " and insert " amend- 
ment." 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. It was to 
that particular point that I was about addressing 
myself, because the rule which has already been 
passed, stating what motions may be made when a 
subject is under consideration, does not mention a 
substitute as one of those motions. Therefore a 
motion by way of substitute cannot be entertained 
at all ; and in order to make the rules consistent 
with themselves, a change should be made in that 
word. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend- 
ment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, 
striking out the word " substitute," and putting in 
its place "amendment " in the last line of the rule. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the 
adoption of the rule as amended, 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Are we to under- 
stand that, if this rule be passed, hereafter a substi- 
tute cannot be offered after there has been an 
amendment to an amendment ? I recollect that 
yesterday, when this matter came up, and the ques- 
tion was asked why these words were left out, the 
answer made— and I believe it received the assent 
generally of those persons who had thought about 
it— was, that they were not necessary, because, by 
all parliamentary rule, a substitute could be offered 
after an amendment had been made to an amend- 
ment. And, if I recollect aright, the gentleman from 
Virginia, at the last sitting of the General Convention, 
when called upon in his place, explained and gave 
the reasons why it was that, where there was an 
amendment offered to an amendment, another reso- 
lution offering a substitute for the whole could be 



31 



received, and could be acted upon as a part of the 
parliamentary law. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I never said "as a 
pai-t of the pai-liameutaiy law," but "as a part of 
our then existing rules. " I certainly never heard of 
such a proposition in any parliamentary or delibera- 
tive body except this. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I recollect differ- 
ently ; but, of course, the gentleman recollects bet- 
ter than I do what he said. But, Mr. President, it 
seems to me that we ought to have just such a rule 
as was provided for by the last House. In mj own 
experience I have seen the necessity of it. I have 
seen, when a political question was introduced into 
a church deliberative assembly, that there were 
amendments offered, and, at last, a gentleman now 
within the sound of my voice poured oil upon the 
waters by means of a substitute, and saved that 
Convention from what many thought would be a 
most deplorable result, simply by offering a sub- 
stitute which met the views of the whole House, and 
was carried unanimously. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Will the gentleman 
from Pittsburgh allow me to explain for a moment ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Certainly. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Just at that critical 
time, when there was an amendment to an amend- 
ment, all that that gentleman had to do was to rise 
in his place and ask the House to vote down the 
amendment to the amendment and also the amend- 
ment, and to state that he would then offer a 
substitute for the pending proposition. If the 
House was, when it was held up to it, in favor of 
taking that oHve branch, let it go on decently 
and in order to reach that grand result. 
In such a case, I would vote against the pending 
amendment to the amendment and against the 
amendment itself, with a view of introducing a final 
substitute for the whole matter. What I object to 
is the crushing down of standing rules in order to 
reach a result before you are ready for it ; not that 
I wish to prevent a substitute being offered. All 
you have to do is to vote down the amendment to 
the amendment and the amendment, and then, if 
your proposition be a substitute for the origi- 
nal proposition, come in with your substi- 
tute for it as an amendment ; and, if you 
agree to that, then adopt the proposition as amend- 
ed and you have achieved the entire result. There 
is no necessity to violate established rules in order to 
attain the result indicated by my friend from Pitts- 
burgh. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. My answer to 
the gentleman is, that his proposition would not 
have met the difficulty in the case stated by me. 
The object was to avoid bringing the House to a vote 
on the amendments. It was most desirable that 
there should be a substitute for the whole which 
met the views of the whole. If the gentleman 
had been placed where some of us were then, 
he would have seen the importance of just 
such a motion as I now speak of. The 
gentleman can weU understand that it is not al- 
ways desirable, when a matter is before the House, 
that there should be a vote upon it. Some persons 
may wish, properly, to avoid voting in a way that, 
if the matter be forced upon them, they will be 
obliged to vote, if they have an honorable way of 
avoiding a vote. That was just the case which was 
presented. 

I see no reason that the gentleman gives for the 
view he holds except a merely technical one, and 
that is that there ought not to be three amendments, 
that where there has been a second amendment we 
ought not to have a third, for fear of confusing 
the House and preventing them from seeing 
exactly what is before them. Practically, 
I think there is no difficulty at all. We all under- 



[ stand what a substitute for the whole matter before 
i the House is, and we all understand that where 
amendments are piled up one on the other, there 
may be confusion. I think any one of ordinary con- 
\ ception can see the difference between a third amend- 
ment and a substitute for the whole matter before 
the House. Of com'se that substitute must be ger- 
mane to the matter then under discussion. We 
can not introduce a foreign matter under the 
form of a substitute; but if it is such a propo- 
sition as covers the whole gromid, and if it is 
acceptable to the House as a whole, I see no 
reason why they should not have an 
opportunity of avoiding all the other questions 
which ai-e presented to them and voting for the 
substitute as a whole. And when I was called upon 
yesterday to give the reason why this part of the 
i old rule had been left out, I took it for granted 
(recollecting, according to my previous impression 
i before the gentleman made the correction, what he 
had himself stated on the floor of the last Conven- 
I tion) that it had been left out simply because it was 
I thought to be imnecessary, that it was the paiiia- 
j mentary law, and that therefore it was not necessary 
I to encumber our rules with putting it in them. 
I But in order to bring the House to a direct vote 
; upon the matter to avoid all misconception with re- 
j gard to it, I now move to insert that portion of the 
1 old rule which provides that, after an amendment 
[ to an amendment, a substitute may be offered for 
the whole matter before the House.' 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. That 
is my amendment which is now before the House, 
i Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I hope the amend- 
ment originally submitted by the gentleman from 
New Jersey may prevail, and before I take my seat 
i I shall move to reconsider the vote we have just 
passed, whereby the word " substitute " was stricken 
out, and, as I understood, "amendment" inserted. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. That is 
another matter. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. Very well. I want 
the rule of the House to stand as it has been for years ; 
j and, with a great deal of deference, I must say that I 
differ from the statement of the gentleman from 
Virginia that the rule he stated is the universal rule. 
So far as my experience goes, the rule as now pro- 
posed is the ordinary rule. True, no deliberative 
bodies are bound absolutely by it. Different bodies 
have different iiiles. If the gentleman from Vir- 
ginia will allow me to say so, the mistake into which 
he has fallen is in treating an amendment and a sub- 
I stitute as the same. A substitute is an amendment (all 
parliamentarians say that), but a substitute is much 
I more than an amendment. It includes a great deal 
more than an amendment. It covers not only the 
1 two amendments that may have been proposed, but 
i it includes somewhat if not all of the original pro- 
j position differently expressed. It is a readjustment 
of the whole subject-matter before the House, the 
original proposition, the second proposition, and 
I the amendment to it, put in different shape, so that 
! the House vote singly on all the questions, having 
the whole before them. The gentleman says this 
i may be done in the way he states, but by what cir- 
I cumlocution does he propose to reach it ^ He says, 
I you have a proposition before the House ; you have 
! offered to that proposition an amendment, No. 1 ; 
I you have offered to that amendment an amendment, 
I No. 3 ; but he says beyond that you cannot go ; 
1 parliamentary law and usage do not authorize it, 
\ and the practical working of such a rule has demon- 
; strated it not to be effective. He says, first vote 
down Amendment No. 2. The gentleman from 
j Pittsburgh has most sensibly, in few words, ex- 
plained that that very often ought to be avoided. 
I It is not desii-able often to vote on many questions. 
I But the gentleman from Virginia then says, "Go 



32 



on and vote down proposition No. 1, and then you 
may bring forward your substitute. " I ask the gentle- 
man from Virginia, " Why go through that routine 
of these various votes, by Yeas and Nays, it may be, 
when, if you present a substitute involving in a 
different form of expression the whole proposition, 
the original resolution, and the two amendments, 
the House sees and understands the whole question 
in one chapter. Ic is like amending an act of the 
legislature by I'eference, instead of re-enacting the 
whole. 

I say, then, that to save time, and in order that 
the members of the Convention may understand 
and know how they are voting, the old rule which 
we had and which is now proposed by the gentle- 
man from New Jersey to be restored is the proper 
one. and I hope it will pass. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. 1 would ask my 
friend from Georgia if he proposes to amend a sub- 
stitute. See, sir, how it puts the minority in the 
House in the hands of a majority. They say that 
they are indisposed to vote upon an amendment to 
an amendment; they are indisposed to vote upon 
the amendment as amended, but they will allow 
somebody to come in with an unamendable propo- 
sition springing from his own brain, or as the organ 
of a previous concerted majority, and throw that in 
as a log to crush down all pending propositions. I do 
not understand that any gentleman on this floor un- 
dertakes to vindicate this upon parliamentary princi- 
ples, but it is vindicated upon the principle of carry- 
ing out the wills of majorities. I am of the opinion 
that rules are intended for the protection of minori- 
ties rather than the furtherance of the views of ma- 
jorities. If there be a majority in favor of that which 
is indicated by a substitute, it is little enough for 
them to give the opportunity to the minority to re- 
cord their votes in favor of the amendment to the 
amendment and the amendment as proposed before 
coming to the question of a general substitute. 

Now, sir, the idea is that it prevents the House 
from coming to a vote on a delicate question. How 
does it prevent the House from coming to a vote 
on a delicate question ? Suppose you introduce 
a substitute, what is that a substitute for ? It brings 
the matter at once to a comparison between the 
substitute and the amendment to the amendment, 
and the amendment as amended, and the origi- 
nal proposition thus amended ; and the House is 
bound to choose between them at one time or an- 
other ; and it is wise to do it at the time 
when, according to parliamentary usage, 
the majoi-ity has the right to demand 
its voice to be carried out. I say that this 
proposition of an amendment to an amendment to 
an amendment — for it is nothing else — tends to con- 
fuse the House, tends to embarrass its judgment, 
tends to make it rush pell-mell to the conclusion 
which is sought to be carried by a majority influ- 
ence or by the surprise movement of some distin- 
guished and influential member. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. May I ask the 
gentleman from Virginia a question ? Is a substi- 
tute, after it is adopted, subject to amendment ? 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. A substitute after 
it has been adopted may only be amended by way 
of addition to the text. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Is it not an 
answer to the argument of the Honorable Deputy 
that you can amend a substitute ? You do away 
with the evils which the argument supposed would 
result from the adoption of this rule, because, if you 
can amend a substitute, then there is no occasion 
for apprehension. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Perhaps I did not 
understand what the gentleman's proposition was. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I ask if a sub- 
stitute can be amended ? 



Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. No, sir. If you 

adopt a substitute for the entii-e matter, there is an 
end of it. You may add a new proposition by an 
independent movement, but if you adopt it finally 
as a substitute, that vote ends the question by way 
of action of the House on the original proposition. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I wish to ask a 
question of the gentleman. When a substitute has 
been adopted, is it not necessary to take another 
vote upon the original resolution as amended by the 
substitute ; and cannot then an amendment to that, 
or an addition to that, be made by the House ? 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. You cannot alter 
the text of a substitute finally agreed to. You may 
add a new section to your bill, but if the substitute 
is designed to cover the whole matter the House 
never will desire to add anything to it. 

Mr. OTIS, of niinois. This House is asked to 
change an old rule. The old rule had in it the pro- 
position now moved by the Clerical Deputy from 
New Jersey. It has been a rule of this House for a 
long number of years. If you will turn to the rules 
of the House of Bishops on the next page after our 
rules, you will see their rules, which have been be- 
fore them for a long number of years, have in them 
the same proposition v/ith respect to a substitute 
which we have always had in this House, 
and which is now proposed to be restored by 
the Clerical Deputy from New Jersey. It is 
a rule among business men, and I believe among 
clergymen, in case of doubt, to move slowly. The 
old rule has worked well. Why should we break 
away from our old rule in this particular ? Why- 
break away from the same rule as the House of Bi- 
shops ? If there is doubt about it, stick to the old 
rule. It is safe to keep it there. There is no rea- 
son why we should adopt any new rule on this sub- 
ject. It will throw us into confusion in that parti- 
cular. It is safest to keep where we are. If 
we adopt this rule a.s proposed by the 
Committee, restoring the clause that was 
dropped out, as the Clerical Deputy from New 
Jersey proposes, we shall be in accord with the other 
House ; we shall be in accoi'd with the long-estab- 
lished usage of this House, and I appeal to the Con- 
vention to stand by the old rule in that particular. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend- 
ment proposed by the gentleman from New Jersey. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. We have 
already passed a rule that no such motion as a sub- 
stitute shall be entertained; and what we now wit- 
ness is a very natural result of this attempt to create 
new Jefferson's or Cushing's Manuals by the General 
Convention. I think it is a very great mistake for 
us to spend our time in this way. We shall, after 
all, have to fall back on general parliamentary 
usage on all these subjects, and I think it will be 
sufficiently safe for us to do so. We have had a dis- 
cussion on the subject of the previous question, which 
is recognized in Congress, and I believe there is about 
as much liberty of debate there as there is in any 
other deliberative body in the world, and it has 
never been found to be a "gag-law" there • but I 
know we have not had it here, I am for sticking to 
the old rules ; but I do not see that we are called 
upon to make a body of parliamentary law at this 
time. We are only on the thirteenth rule of this 
series, and we have twenty-six, so that it will take 
us the first week of a three weeks' session to discuss 
the rules. I think this is a mistake. 

I make these remarks at this juncture for the sake 
of deprecating this whole discussion upon questions 
of parliamentary usage. I can turn the attention 
of this House to a record that has been made in the 
Journal — I do not wish to be too definite whether it 
was at the last General Convention or the one be- 
fore — where the ruling is directly opposite to Cush- 



33 



ing's book on the Practice of Legislative Assemblies. 
To that decision I, having at the time had some- 
thing to do with the question, quietly submitted, 
because one of the most tremendous majorities was 
against me. I think it is a great mistake for us to 
continue this kind of debate and legislation. I hope 
after we act on this rule we shall not consume time 
on the others. When this is disposed of, I will 
vote for almost anything in the succeeding rules. 

The PRESIDENT. I beheve nearly aU the other 
provisions are mere matters of course taken from the 
old rules. It will be necessary now under the amend- 
ment just adopted by the House that the action on 
the previous amendment in regard to the word 
"substitute," at the close of this rule, should be re- 
considered. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
was about to make a motion that would cover that, 
and cover a little more ground. I now move to 
amend the rule by adding after the word "amend- 
ment," at the close, the words "or substitute," so as 
to read, " Under color of an amendment or substi- 
tute," because amendments not germane may be 
offered as well as a substitute. It will then read 
that a proposition shall not be changed under 
color of an amendment or substitute not germane to 
the subject. 

The PRESIDENT. That would save the necessity 
of moving a reconsideration. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
We have now made the mle read. 

" No proposition on a subject different from the 
one under consideration shall be received under 
color of an amendment. " 

I now move to add the words " or substitute," so 
as to read, "under color of an amendment or sub- 
stitute." 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend- 
ment just moved. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the 
rule as amended. 

The rule as amended was adopted. 

The Secretary read the next rule as follows : 

"14. In all questions decided numerically, the mo- 
tion to reconsider must be made by one Deputy, and 
seconded by another who voted in the majority ; 
or, in case of equal division, by those who voted in 
the negative ; and in case of a vote by orders, where 
there is a concurrence of both orders, a motion to 
reconsider shall be made by a majority of a deputa- 
tion from any Diocese of either order voting in the 
majority ; and in case of a non-concmTence of 
orders, the motion to reconsider shaU come from a 
majority of a deputation from a Diocese of that 
order which gave the majority in the negative ; 
and in either case a motion to reconsider shall be 
seconded by a majority of any deputation of either 
order, without regard to its previous vote. And all 
motions to reconsider shall be made and seconded 
on the day the vote is taken, or the next succeedmg 
day." 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I wish to move 
an amendment. It will be observed here that where 
a motion for a reconsideration of a vote numerically 
taken is made, it must be made and seconded by 
those who have voted in the majority, or where there 
is an equal division by those who voted in the nega- 
tive, but where the vote is taken by orders it does 
not require the same. I think the rule ought to read 
alike in both cases. Therefore I submit this amend- 
ment : Strike out in the second line the word 
" one " before the word " Deputy " and insert in its 
place the word "a" ; also, in the same line, strike 
out the words " and seconded by another," and also 
in the third hue strike out the word " those " and 
insert instead the word "one," so as to read : 

" In aU questions decided numerically, the motion 



to reconsider must be made by a Deputy who voted 
in the majority ; or, in case of equal division, by 
one who voted in the negative." 

In that case the same provision is made in voting 
numerically as in voting by dioceses and orders. 
Now suppose a question decided by a vote numeri- 
cally by a majority of one, and suppose one who 
voted in the majority "^vishes to change his vote ; he 
moves a reconsideration, but imless he can get 
t another one to second him, so that fina,lly 
when the vote came to be taken it would 
! be carried by a majority of two on the 
i other side, he cannot make the motion. In 
the case of a vote by dioceses and orders, a mo- 
; tion to reconsider may be seconded by a diocese or 
; a delegation that voted on either side. Why should 
I there not be the same rule in the case of a numerical 
I vote ? It seems to me it should be the same, and I 
therefore offer the amendment. 
The amendment was rejected. 
, The rule was adopted. 

I The Secretary read the next rule, as follows : 
"15. The Reports of all Committees shall be in 
writing, and shall be received, of course, and with- 

: out motion for acceptance, unless recommitted by 
a vote of the House. All Reports recommending 

: or requiring any action or expression of opinion 

I by the House shall be accompanied by a resolution 

I for the action of the House therein. " 

I The rule was adopted. 

The Secretary read the next rule, as follows : 

I "16. No business shall be introduced for the consid- 
eration of tlie House after the thirteenth day of its 

j session, except by a vote of two-thii-ds of the mem- 

! Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I suggest anin- 
i formal amendment that the word "new " be insert- 
ed between "no" and "business," so as to read : 
"no new business." 
i Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Does not the 
; word "introduced" imply that ^ You cannot in- 
i troduce a thing that has been here before. 
I Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Suppose a mes- 
sage were to come down from the House of Bishops, 
I that would be new business. It can do no harm to in- 
sert the word ; it is the usual expression in all delib- 
' erative bodies. Certainly, if a message were to 
j come down from the House of Bishops after the 
j time limited in this rule, it would be new 
' business, and we could not act on it under this rule 
I without a two-thirds vote. As the word "new" 
i clearly carries out the sense, and it can do no harm, 
! I move to insert it. 

I The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend- 
I ment, 

i The amendment was agreed to. 
! The PRESIDENT. The question is on the rule 
as amended. 

I Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Before 
[ this question is taken, I would hke to make a single 
j remark, and I would request the Convention to vote 
1 against this rule if they are willing to do so. It is 
: an entirely new rule. It is not to be found in the 
j old rules of the House, and, I think, never has be- 
1 longed to the rules of the llouse from the beginning 
i of our sessions. If it were not a new rule entirely, 
j I should say nothing on the subject, believing that 
the House itself, by its own customs and usages, 
would establish such a modification of this rule that 
; it would not work harshly. But it seems to me 
1 now it should not be adopted unless it is very evi- 
dent that it is a necessaiy rule very important to 
I the expediting of the business of the House. It is 
i seen that it cuts off an important right to every 
i member of the House, to introduce at any time dur- 
j ing this session such business as he believes to be for 
i the good of the Church and the glory of our 
I Saviour. It seems to be harsh even in its provisions 



in requiring that this limit shall be the thiii:eenth 
day. Our sessions generally are prolonged to the 
twentieth day. I have attended Conventions where 
its sessions have been longer than twenty days. 

We are not, Mr. President, a parliamentary body, 
we are not a legislative body in the sense in which 
we speak of legislative bodies as connected with our 
States. It is true we are the legislative body of the 
Church. Are we to be governed, then, by the prin- 
ciples which prevail in Parliament ^ I know per- 
fectly well that in many of the legislative bodies of 
our various States it is provided that new business 
shall not come in after a certain day. In some 
of them it is provided that if any person is 
going to petition the legislature he shall have 
his petition printed in a certain paper for a 
certain number of days before the session of the 
legislature is held at ail. There are a great many 
bars put around to prevent business from coming 
in, except such business *as must necessarily be 
passed upon. But we are not only Deputies from 
Dioceses who have come here to make laws, but we 
are brethren, representing brethren throughout the 
whole Church, brethren who are willing to do any- 
thing which shall really promote the glory of 
Christ and advance the interests of our Church. 

Now, I can see very many instances in which, if 
we put such bonds upon us as this, we shall cut our- 
selves off, perhaps, from doing that which we ought 
to do, and which we would desire to do. It may be 
said, and it will be said, that two-thirds of the House 
may allow business to be introduced, but we all 
know that we cannot tell at once whether the busi- 
ness is important. Vie cannot present the business 
in such a way that it will, appear important to tAvo- 
thirds of the'^House, unless there has been consider- 
able discussion upon it ; and we know, moreover, 
that this would cut off a great many persons who 
are modest from bringing forward new business at 
ail. 

Besides this, thei-e is the T^oint Avhich has been 
presented by one of the Deputies who has just 
spoken — I did not notice wiio he was — with reference 
to business coming down from the House of Bishops. 
The House of Bishops have no such rule as this, but 
they may have theii' new business come in on any 
day of the session. They generally are not ready 
to adjourn as soon as the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies is. Business coming down from the House 
of Bishops must be considered here, must be acted 
upon in some way. We may at any time be flooded 
with business from the House of Bishops ; and yet 
you cut off every member of this House" from i^re- 
senting any new business. 

Thei'e are various ways m which this new busi- 
ness may be turned aside. We may lay it upon the 
table ; we may postpone it to the next Convention ; 
we may postpone it indefinitely. We are not our- 
selves, because the new business is introduced, re- 
quired to consider it at length, and debate it, and 
act upon it immediately. I Avould thei ef ore suggest 
to the Convention that this rule, which may be 
parliamentary, and may be necessary for legisla- 
tures, is not necessary for this House ; and being a 
new inile, we should go on throuo'h one session more 
withoiit its adoption, for it will tie our hands in such 
a way that they cannot be untied except by this mys- 
terious two-thirds of the House, and it may cut us 
off from very much business of importance. 

As I said in the beginning, I should not attempt 
to say a word on the subject if this were not a new 
rule, and I can understand how my reverend 
father from Connecticut will immediately arise 
with a great many instances in which it would have 
been very desira^bie that we should not have had 
new business come in at a late hour, but I hope he 
will be more merciful in tliis matter. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. President, 



1 I hold that after this House have informed the 
' House of Bishops, directly or indirectly, that they 
have completed their business and wiU be 
ready to receive them and to hear the 
pastoral letter and have the concluding re- 
ligious exercises, the whole business of this House 
! has been completed ; and I am free to say 
that I have been shocked at the fact occurring no 
later than the last General Convention, that after a 
' vote asking the House of Bishops when they would 
< be ready to give the pastoraJ letter and to have the 
: closing religious exercises, and after many members 
i had gone away, not supposing any business would 
I be transacted, some very important business was 
: transacted. I Imow after I had left the House, and 
! after several others had left, supposing no business 
was to be done, one canon was passed which had 
I been negatived, but it came m a new form from the 
Plouse of Bishops after the pastoral letter was read. 
It was a canon on the restoration of a clergyman 
' who had been deposed, but that canon 
never has been acted upon, and I presume 
I never will be acted upon ; but I was 
; shocked that at that late period of the session 
i and after, according to usage, the House had resolved 
I virtually to adjourn, any new business of that Idnd 
i should come up. I must contend that there should 
I be some limitation of the time when new business 
shall be started. I am not the man that will start 
up at the last moment to bring forward any new 
business. I do not know that I ever did it, although 
I now stand here for the sixteenth successive G-eneral 
Convention, since I first entered the House. I have 
seen the evil, and I say that there should be a line 
drawn. I would not say ' ' after the thirteenth day, ' ' 
because we generally sit at least twenty days, but I 
would say that after the sixteenth day no new busi- 
ness should be considered except by a vote of two- 
: thirds. 

I Bear in mind, Mr. President and gentlemen, that 
: you have the power on the part of two-thirds to 
I iaring in new business at the last moment, and that 
! is reasonable ; but where new business is brought in 
j by a bare majority, after that majority has been 
'• thinned out, you see the result of it. The result is 
; that a Canon" was passed at the last General Conven- 
: tion which would have been an evil — a gross evil — 
j in the restoi'ation of one man in one of the Western 
I dioceses who had been deposed, and, I presume, will 
continue in his present deposition ; but that Canon 
was made specially to reach that case. I protest 
against such legislation. I think it is dangerous to 
the Church. We must liave some Umitation. 
' The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from 
Connecticut move to change the time from thirteen 
to sixteen days ^ 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that 
amendment. 

Rev. Dr. HASKINS, of Long Island. I move an 
amendment to that. I move that the rule be amend- 
ed by inserting, after the word " the " in the second 
line, " after notice has been given by the House of 
Bishops that they are ready to adjourn." 

The PRESIDENT. That would come under the 
principle of accumulating amendments. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The usual 
course is to send notice that we will receive the 
Bishops at a certain hour. The legislation to which I 
refer Avas at elcA^en o'clock at night, when I had left 
' the hall, and a large number of Deputies had left, 
not supposing any other business would be at- 
tempted. 

The PRESIDENT. The last amendment pro- 
posed entirely changes the character of the rule and 
is inadmissible. The question is on the amend- 
! ment of the Deputy from Connecticut to strike out 
i ' ' 15th " and insert ' ' 16th. " 

The amendment was agreed to. 



35 



The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the 
adoption of the rule as thus amended. 

The rule as amended was adopted. 

The Secretary read the nest rale of older, as fol- 
lows : 

'•17. Whenever any nomination for a Missionary 
Bishopric, sent down from the House of Bishops, 
shall be mider consideration, the House shall sit with 
closed doors." 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I think this rule 
also requires amendment. I loiovv^ of no reason why 
we should sit with closed doors on a Missionary Bish- 
op and not sit with closed doors on a Diocesan Bishop. 
When action is sent do^vn from the House of Bish- 
ops upon the nomination of a Diocesan Bishop, and 
we have to consider it, it seems to me that the same 
reason which requires closed doors in the one case, 
should require closed doors in the other. Therefore, 
I move to amend by adding; the following words 
after the word "bishops" in the second line, '*or 
the subject of approving the testimonials or assent- 
ing to the consecration of any Bishop of a Diocese." 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President, 
I have no objection to the amendment that has been 
offered : on the contrary, I quite favor it ; but 
there is still a very important matter behind this 
that I think ought to be considered at the same time. 
Though this Convention must sit in accordance 
with ancient Canons with closed doors when the 
characters of men are under discussion, as thej^ ai-e 
apt to be on such an occasion, still it is desirable 
that as manly men in the presence of our brethren 
we should have and expect to have the word of love 
made matter of perpetual record. On such occa- 
sions, if we sit -with 'closed doors, it will alw-^ays be 
possible for men to speak and not go on the 
record, unless we take some means to pro- 
vide that they shall remain and be compelled 
to remain by the recoi'd which they have made for 
themselves.' While in the Lambeth Sjaiod, if it 
may be so called, as I trust it may, the Bishops there 
assembled felt that it would not be well tha,t the 
record of their proceedings should be immediately 
made public, they took this course, that a steno- 
graphic report was made, and ha\ang been made it 
was kept until the time should arrive when it might 
with propriety be made public. Now, if we sit 
with closed doors, I believe the sense of this Con- 
vention is that though it may not be desirable that 
all that is said and done should immediately be 
reported to the world, yet in some way or other I 
think every word spoken here ought, as a matter of 
right to the candidates whose names may be under 
consideration, as a matter of historic verity and 
truth, to be recorded, to be preserved in some f oi m. 
I do not know how to put what I desii-e in form, but 
what I ask is that this particulai' rule should foi- the 
present be postponed ; that it should be remitted to 
some committee to frame an express rule for the or- 
der of this House at the time of the consideration of 
the confirmation of a Bishop-elect. I trust that 
whatever is done by this House will be done with 
closed doors in such a case, but with care that the 
record be preserved usque ad lif eram. 

Rev. Dr. ADAIkIS, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, 
with regard to this matter, I propose to move a sub- 
stitute for the whole — for the original seventeenth 
article of the rules of order, and also for Grovernor 
Stevenson's amendment. The substitute that I move 
is this : " When any subject whatsoever comes be- 
fore this House necessitating the discussion of per- 
sonal character, this House may, upon motion, re- 
solve to sit with closed doors." 

The reason that I move this is because there are 
two matters on hand. In the first place, wlien we 
examine the qualifications of any gentleman for 
any office in this Church, we have a perfect right to 
discuss his character in every way that we. as the 



I legislature of the Church, choose to do under the 

common rules of order; that is to say, xmder the 
rules of order and decency that become gentle- 
men. In the second place, it is peil'ectly mani- 
fest that all discussion of personal character of 
the candidates for any office whatsoever ought 
not to be open to the general public. I must hon- 
estly saj^ that my soul has revolted at seeing 
the comments of the press upon gentlemen who 
came before various conventions as candidates for 
the Episcopate, and as candidates for other ofiices, 
for which they were scorned, despised, spat upon by 
men who were not fit to speak to them. I think 
that when a gentlem.an, clerical or lay, comes before 
us as a candidate for any ofiice, or where his nomi- 
nation has to be confirmed by us in any way, we 
should protect him from the remarks of the out- 
side public, which outside public at the present 
time is largely irreligious, largely scorns not 
only the Church, but all belief in Christ. 
Therefore, Mi'. President, not from any desire of 
speaking on the matter publicly, but simply from 
the desire to jirotect us of the clergy and us of the 
lait^^ from that possibility, at the same time that we 
wish the most full discussion of character for all per- 
sons that come before us, I move this substitute : 

"When any subject whatsoever comes before 
this House necessitating the discussion of personal 
character, this House may, upon motion, resolve to 
sit with closed doors." 

I put it in the most general way because I am 
confident that this subject which I have started 
goes to the heart and feehng of all the clergy and 
laity that are in this Convention, and I do not believe 
that this, my substitute, will be the final form wliich 
the proposition will assume under the manipulation 
and discussion of the clergy and laity of this House, 
and thei'efore I put it in the widest way. I am 
satisfied that the whole thing is to be discussed here, 
and it ought to be decided on because I may 
honestly say that foi- the last twenty yeai's I have 
seen reports of the discussions of the characters of 
men that came up as candidates for the episcopate 
by the nomination of their friends, and to my mind 
the way the cha.i-acters of those gentlemen have 
been treated was perfectly disgraceful in every 
aspect in which you can look at it. 

I will also say another thing : that if we, the 
General Convention, or the great National Council 
of the Church in the United States, could pass such 
a resolution as this, it would largely go down to the 
Diocesan Conventions, and would modify their ac- 
tion in a very great degree and cause a good deal 
more feeling of gentlemanly conduct among our 
diocesan conventions, and of the sense that each 
Christian and each gentleman ought to have of the 
character of any one who is a brother baptized and 
in communioiPwith him in the Church. 

I would say to the Convention that two things are 
by this resolution of mine attained : in the first 
place, the right to have the fullest discussion of the 
character of those who come up for oflBce in the 
Chui-ch ; in the second place, the right to keep off 
altogether the outside world. I look at it as one 
movement only towards that feeling that they had 
in pi imitive Christianity, that there were two great 
bodies on this orbit globe of ours, the World and 
the Church, and that with regard to the Church she 
should do her own business within her own borders, 
and keep out the world from interfering either with 
the scalding tongue or the sneering serpent-like 
sting with which the world both now and ever has 
been accustomed to treat all circumstances connect- 
ed with the Church. My resolution is : 

" When any subject whatsoever comes before this 
House necessitating the discussion of personal char- 
acter, this House may, upon motion, resolve to sit 
with closed doors." 



36 



That I move as a substitute for the whole matter. 
Several DEPUTIES. The hour of adjournment 
has arrived. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The hour of ad- 
journment has arrived, and I move that we adjourn. 

The PRESIDENT. It is not necessary to move an 
adjournment, but a motion may be made to con- 
tinue the session. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I make the motion. 

Rev. Dr. PARRINGTON, of New Jersey. But 
that motion must be made before the hour is reached. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The motion wa^ 
made after four o'clock. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. No one but the 
Chair has a right to announce that the hour of four 
has arrived. Our watches may be different. Before 
the announcement was made, a proposition was of- 
fered to continue the session. 

The PRESIDENT. I thmk the motion was made 
after the hour of four. The House now stands ad- 
journed until to-morrow at 10 o'clock a.m. 



THIRD DAY. 

Friday, October 9. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel 
at 10 A.M. 

Morning Prayer was said by Rev. Horace String- 
feUow, D.D., of Alabama. The Lessons were read 
by Rev. J. H. Hobart Brown, d.d., of Albany. The 
Litany was said by Rev. Robert W. Trimble, of Ar- 
kansas. The Benediction was pronounced by the 
Rt. Rev. William R. Whittingham, d.d., ll.d.. 
Bishop of Maryland. 

The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read 
and approved. 

ASSISTANT SECRETARIES. 

The Secretary announced that he had ap- 
pointed Rev. G. S. Mallory, d.d., of Connecticut, 
and Rev. C. L. Hutchins, m.a., of Massachusetts, 
second and third Assistant Secretaries respectively. 

FOREIGN VISITORS. 

Rev. Dr. SHELTON, of Western New York, sub- 
mitted the following report : 

"The Committee appointed to wait upon the 
Lord Bishop of Lichfield, and other English and Col- 
onial clergy, now in attendance, beg leave to report 
that they have waited on his Lordship and the other 
clergy, and have received from them notice that 
they will be present in this House at two o'clock this 
afternoon." 

LIST OF DEPUTIES. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the Com- 
mittee on Elections, submitted the following re- 
port : 

"The Committee on Elections respectfully report 
that certificates of election of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies of this House have been received from 
every diocese in union with this Convention, fortj^- 
one in number, and from the missionary jurisdic- 
tion of Oregon and Washiugton Territory and Da- 
kota ; that they have found the certificates to be in 
due form, and have given to the Secretary a list of 
the names of those entitled to sit as members of the 
House, being the same as have been entered on the 
roll by the Secretary. " 

NEW DIOCESE IN NEW JERSEY. 

The Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia, from the 
Committee on the Admission of New Dioceses, sub- 
mitted the following report : 

" That the Committee on the Admission of New 
Dioceses, to whom was referred the memorial of the 



i Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of New 
J ersey, asking the consent of the General Convention 
, to the erection of a new diocese within the limits of 
\ the present Diocese of New Jersey, respectfully re- 
port, 

i "That, having examined the documents submit- 
ted to them, and found them to be correct, they rec- 
i ommend the adoption of the following preamble and 
! resolution : 

I "Whereas, A request has been presented to the 
I House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, from the Dio- 
I cese of New Jersey, that a new diocese be erected 
[ within the limits of the present diocese of New 
I Jersey, the said diocese to be composed of the 
I counties of Sussex, Warren, Morris, Passaic, Ber- 
gen, Hudson, and Essex, togethei' with the town- 
ship of Summit in Union County ; and 

"Whereas, It appears by the ofiicial documents 
laid before this House that the Bishop and Conven- 
tion of New J ersey have consented to the erection 
of the said new diocese, and that the requirements 
of Article V., of the Constitution, and also of Section 
III. , Canon 6, Title 3, have aU been met ; therefore 
" Be it Resolved, That the House of Clerical and 
Lay Deputies do hereby consent to the erection of 
the proposed new diocese within the limits of the 
present Diocese of New Jersey, and that this House 
(the House of Bishops concurring) do also hereby 
ratify the formation of the proposed new diocese, 
and hereby recognize the union of said diocese with 
the General Convention, to take effect on the 1st of 
November next." 

The PRESIDENT. What action shaU be taken 
on this report ? 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. I do not pre- 
sume, sir, that it is necessaiy to go into the details as 
to compliance with the requirements, but one provi- 
sion of Ai'ticle V. is that the new diocese shall 
contain at least six parishes and six presbyters. 
The tei-ritory which it is proposed now to admit 
contains in the new diocese forty presbji^eis and 
fifty parishes. The old diocese must contain twelve 
presbyters and twelve parishes. The old diocese in 
this case contains fifty-six parishes and thirty-five 
presbyters. Provision is also required to be made for 
the adequate support of the Episcopate. Within a 
fraction of $10,000 annual income is provided for the 
support of the Bishops of both the dioceses. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I move, sir, that 
the report of the Committee be adopted as the ac- 
tion of this House, and that the proposed division 
be agreed to. There is no doubt whatever of the 
necessity of it. The diocese is too large for a healthy 
Bishop, and I am sorry to say that our present 
Bishop is not in health to perform the duties prop- 
erly, so that the division is a real necessity. I think, 
as a delegate from that diocese, as well as a mem- 
ber of the Committee on New Dioceses, that the re- 
quest ought at once to be granted without hesita- 
tion. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. May I ask for 
the reading of that portion of the report which 
speaks of the 1st of November ? 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. No specific 
time was mentioned in the application, and the re- 
port was therefore at first couched in general lan- 
I guage, "whenever duly organized and named in 
i Primary Conventions ; " but it was thought better 
by the Bishop and the Committee who had the mat- 
j ter in charge, and as meeting the provision of the 
j Constitution more perfectly, to name a specific date, 
I as is usually done, and the date selected was the 1st 
i of November next. 

I Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. May I ask wheth- 
er the Committee, in acting upon this matter, had 
under consideration the canon which was passed at 
the last General Convention i That provides that 
the Committee shall name the time, and that the 



37 



Diocese shall become united with the Convention as 
soon as its Primary Convention has been organized. 

Rev. Mr. KANCKEL, of Virginia. Exactly; and 
the first report we drew up was to that efi'ect. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of 'New Jersey. Will 
the gentleman read the latter part of the resolution ? 
I thought myself it was open to objection. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. We could not 
introduce both provisions. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I suggest to the 
Chairman of tlie Committee that, although we have 
not finally disposed of the whole list of rules, yet 
we have adopted many of them, and 1 suppose the 
House, as a matter of practice and convenience, will 
recognize the binding obligation of one rule already 
acted on, that reports from committees shall go 
upon the Calendar when made, and be taken up in 
the order in which they have been submitted after 
all the committees have been heard from. It will 
produce a great deal of confusion if, when reports 
are just made, debates spring up on them. 

The PRESIDENT pro tern. [Rev. Dr. Beardsley, 
of Connecticut, in the Chair]. Vv^e are acting under 
the old rule. We have not yet adopted the report 
of the committee prorjosing nev/ rules. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I know we have 
not adopted the v/hole body of rules ; but the prac- 
tice of the House ought to conform to the idea sug- 
gested in tiie new rule, of which I have spoken, as a 
matter of convenience. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I aiove 
that this report be placed upon the Calendar in an- 
ticipation of the adoption of the new rules, proba- 
bly to-da7v^. 

Mr. MEIGS, of Nev/ Jersey. I submit that we 
cannot act under a rule which is but part of a series 
of rules for the government of this body, until the 
whole series has imdergone consideration. Any 
rule already passed upon may be altered before we 
complete the series of rules. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Then, Mr. Presi- 
dent, as it is likely the rules will be adopted to-day, 
providing, among other thing?, for a Calendar, and 
providing that that Calenda.r shall be taken up each 
day at 12 o'clock, I move that the further considera- 
tion of this report be postponed until to-morrow at 
13 o'clock, and then it will properly come up on the 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. That 
amounts to the same thing as my motion. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I hope that this mat- 
ter will not be postponed. There is no difficulty in 
regard to this case ; it is very plain. . It is a division 
of a Diocese containing 120 or more parishes, ex- 
tending over a wide expanse of coimtry, and the 
necessity of the division must be apparent to every 
clergyman on this floor ; and unless some objection 
can be raised to it — and I have not heard a single 
one yet named — I think we can readily get rid of 
this matter and save the time of the House. I hope 
it will not be postponed. 

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on 
the motion to pospone this report until to-morrow, 
and place it on the Calendar. 

The motion was agreed to. 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I hold a copy of 
record from the Diocese of Texas, which is brought 
here in the shape of a memorial, accompanied by a. 
resolution, referring to the proposed constitutional 
amendment allowing Dioceses too large to set off a 
portion into missionary jurisdictions. I do not pro- 
pose to read the memorial, but will simply state 
that it commands the Deputies of Texas to urge 
the completion of this action and the amendment 
of the Constitution, so that a Diocese of vast terri- 
tory may, by its own action when completed in 



Convention, set off portions thereof into missionary 

jurisdictions. The resolution 1 will read : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishoi^s concurring), 
I That the proposed alteration of Article V. of the 

Constitution, proposed in the last General Conven- 
! tion, and made loiown to the several diocesan con- 
\ ventions, and printed on page 360 of the Journal of 

the last General Convention, be, and the same is 

hereby, finally agreed to and ratified, as provided 

in Article IK\ of the Constitution." 
I move the reference of this memorial and resolu- 
i tion to the Committee on Canons, and I move it this 
! morning because all other action pertaining- to this 
: m.atter must lay aside until this action is had. 
I Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. From the re- 
! marks made yesterday, there is no doubt in my 
! mind that the House ' will this morning appoint a 
I Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. I 

Vv'-ould therefore respectfully advise that the memo- 
I rial ]3e laid on the table until that committee be ap- 
! pointed, and that then it be referred to that commit- 
! tee. 

' Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I am v/iUing to 
I take that course. 

] Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Whenever it is 
the proper time, I shall make a motion to the effect 
that the memorial be referred to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution. I now move that 
it lie on the ta.ble for the present. 

I The motion was agreed~to. 

i Rev. Mr. DOUGLAS, of Mississippi. I have a 
I memorial of the Diocese of Mississippi to present, 
■ and as it simply regards the so-called Nicene Creed, 
i I ask to present it \^'ithout reading, and move that 
1 it be referred to the proper committee, 
j Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. The time for 
! the order of the day has come. 

i Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move to sus- 
I pend the order of the day, in order to receive me- 
morials. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I suggest that 
it requires a two-thirds vote to suspend the order of 
the day. 

The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on sus- 
pending the order of the day, for the purpose of 
receiving and referring memorials. 
! The motion was not agreed to, there being, on a 
! division. Ayes, 106 ; Noes, 64 ;— not two-thirds 
, voting in the affirmative. 

Rev. Mr. DOUGLAS, of Mississippi. Have I leave 
to present this memorial ? 

The PRESIDENT pro tem. No, sir ; the order of 
the day will now be proceeded with, being the con- 
sideration of the rules of order which were under 
discussion at the adjournment yesterday. The Sec- 
retary will i-ead the pending rule and the amend- 
ment. 

RULES OF ORDER. 

The SECRETARY. The 17th Rule of Order, as 
reported, being under consideration, Mr. Steven- 
j son, of Kentucky, moved to amend the same 
j by inserting after the word "bishop," in the 
' second line, the words, "or the subject of ap- 
i proving the testimonials or assenting to the 
i consecration of any Bishop of a diocese." The 
I Rev. Dr. Adams, of Wisconsin, moved to amend 
the amendment by striking out all after the number 
of the rule as reported, and inserting instead there- 
of the following words : 

"When any subject whatsoever comes before this 
House necessitating the discussion of personal char- 
acter, this House may, upon motion, resolve to sit 
with closed doors." 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I rise, Mr. President, 
to express the hope that the House wiU not adopt 
any rule of order which will require any portion 
of its proceedings to be carried on with closed 
doors. It seems to me that any such resolution or 



38 



rule of ordei' is against the spirit of the age. The 

Clerical Deputy whose substitute is now imme- 
diately before the House, in the course of his 
remarks yesterday evening expressed the hope that 
our personal matters would be excluded f rom the 
world. Now, Mr. President, we cannot afford to 
disregard the world. Our mission, if 1 understand it, 
is to the world, and to the whole world, and nothing 
that we do can be indifferent to the world. 

Another reason is, that publicity in our age and 
country is a great securit^r. Vv' e ail act under a 
sense of higher responsibility when we act in the 
presence of the public ; and that is a guarantee of 
due consideration on the part of our body of the 
subject-matter of the character of those whose per- 
sonal qualifications for positions in the Church may 
cojne before this House. 

Again, I object to any rule of order demanding 
secrecy by this House, because we are well a ware 
practically that the public will know, and does 
know, eVerything that the public cares to 
know. It is utterly futile to attempt to con- 
ceal from the public anything that is of suffi- 
cient importance for it to care to know. There is a 
constitutional provision by which the Senate of the 
U nited States has power to enforce its secrecy ; but 
every man convei'sant with public affairs knovv's 
that it is utterly nugatoiy. The secret action of 
that body is divulged eveiy hour, and transpires al- 
most as soon to the public "as it takes place, and the 
attemj>t at secrecy is only a source of misi-epresent- 
ation, and adds to the embarrassment v.?;£ich the 
body is under. We knovy- (contrary to the idea 
w-hich a learned Lay Deputy expressed yestei'daj^) 
that this rule of secrecy v/as inti'oduced into the 
Senate for the purpose of having free discussion. It 
was not to prevent it. It was not to prevent an 
analysis, and a severe analysis, of the character of 
those v/ho might be presented for office, it was to 
secure tha,t ver^,' end. It was to encourage freedom 
of discussion v/ith regard to e"^"erybody who should 
be presented for public trust. 

Now, I regard our Bishops, or an^^ other persons 
who are to hold relations with this Church, as hold- 
ing a public trust ; and, instead of excluding, we 
ought to hiAdte the public to take an interest 
in our affairs and help us to do our 
work. The most efficient way to do this, as I under- 
stand the conduct of public affairs, is to act in the 
face of the public. Secrecy is at an end. If a 
subject is excluded from the public that the public 
cares to Imow about, it v^dll be sure to find out all 
about it. A nomination ought not to be secret. 
Publicity is a guarantee of the best conduct. It is a 
responsibility umder which evei'ybody who holds 
public trust ought to act. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Mr. President, when this 
rule was first proposed, I was inclined to favor it; 
but upon subsequent reflection I am decidedly 
opposed to it, and for reasons which I will state 
briefly. 

After the Revolution, the Church of England, in 
America, was organized under our present Constitu- 
tion; and the House of Bishops from the beginning 
has always sat with closed doors, and this House has 
always sat with open doors. We have had one 
House sitting with closed doors all the time. That 
is sufiicient to protect the Church in every depart- 
ment where we require secrecy. This is a 
legislative body. Each Diocese sends eight 
Deputies, four Clerical Deputies and four Lay 
Deputies, to this House to represent and 
legislate for the Church in this country. There is 
no reason why we should sit in secret session. They 
wish to know what we are doing. W e have invited 
reporters here to make accurate reports of what we 
say and do. We wish, every one of us, that our 
constituents shall know what we say and do. W e 



! do not wish to do anything behind the certain, es- 

! pecially if that act should be the most important of 
any act during the entire session of the Convention. 
As has been well said by the honorable and learned 
Deputy from Mar^yland, the public opinion of the 

; Church is the great guide of the Church ; and how 
shall we know that public opinion, and how is it 
formed, except by oui' constituents reading and 

' knowing what we say and do 

i It is conti'ary to the whole spirit of our Church 
' for this HotTse to attempt to close its doors. The 
: House of Bishops closes its doors, v/ith no one inside 
I but themselves and their Secretary. Suppose this 
I House attemxjts to close its doors ? The very first 
I or second day of our session we adopted a resolu- 
j tion that the' families of the Bishops and the fo mi- 
lies of the Clerical and Lay Deputies should have a 
gallery for their u^;e during the entire session. Vf e 
adopted a resolution that the representatives of our 
Mother Church of Engla,nd, and of the Church in 
Canada, sliould come here and attend the sittings of 
I this Convention. We adopted a resolution that ail 
j the ministers of Trinity Chui ch in the city of New 
York should be mvited. to seats in this Convention, 
and to attend its sittings. We have invited the rep- 
resentatives of the Greek Church, who may be here, 
to attend our sittings. We have invited all the 
clergymen of tliis Church, all professors of 
the Genera-l Theological Seminaiy, and all the stu- 
dents, to attend all the sittings of this Convention. 
Novv^ will you close the doors with all these in ! 
[Laughter.] You cannot turn them out. It would 
[ be indecorous to turn our backs on our guests. We 
j may ciose our doois here and involve ourselves in a 
discussion that may last one hour, one day, or one 
week. Where are our guests all the while ? 
[Laughter.] It is entirely impracticable. If anj- 
thing is to be done u.nder such a rule, it must be re- 
ferred to the Committee on Canons, and drawn out 
with details for executing it, and that may cover 
j an entire page of the Journal. It cannot be done 
under a i-ale of three lines. It is entirely useless to 
attempt it. It requires details to carry out the 
idea. 

Then, again, are we going to remove every mem- 
ber from that responsibility to the Church which 
we are under as to what we shall say here ? The 
only reason for secret sessions of any body in this 
coimtry and England is to i-emove members from 
j liability for prosecution for slandei- and libel. That 
I is the foundation of the whole thing. Do you wish 
to exem.pt yourselves from responsibility to God 
and to the Church and to the members of this 
Church for what we shall say here { No ; I want 
to be responsible myself for all I say, and I want 
every other member to be under the same responsi- 
bility. 

It has been suggested that we have a private re- 
porter to report what we say, and that that report 
shall be laid away in the ai'chives. Then we never 
could get at it ; we never could produce his report ; 
and the consequence would be, that each one would 
conne out telling what his neighbor said, and every 
man would be mismiderstood and misrepresented, 
whereas the reporters we have here will tell Just 

[ what occurs, and we have something to protect us 

I in the record they make. 

I I do not want A and B from each diocese to go and 
j tell all I shall say in secret session ; neither does any 
other Deputy want me to go out and state what he 
says. He and I would rather have the report of the 
reporters. That is accurate, and that is what v/e 
are willing to stand by. It is an easy thing for a 
clergyman to be misrepresented outside of a secret 
I session, and to have it understood that he said so and 
i so inside hei-e, with nothing to protect himself ex- 
1 cept a report filed away in the archives where he can- 
not get at it, it being a thousand miles from his 



39 



home : but of what is said in open session he has a 
report made, he has the volume in his library at 
home, he has the whole thing before him, and tl at 
he stands by. and that he is willing to stand b}'. 

I close with moving that the whole subject of 
rule seventeen, with the pending amendments there- 
to, be indefinitelr postponed, and I hope we shall 
adopt the other roles. 

Mr. TTI-IITTLE. of Georgia. Mr. President, 
I am opposed to this rule reported by the Conunic- 
tee, but I shall vote for the substitute of the rever- 
end gentleman from \v isconsin ; and I will biieny 
give the reasoris for my vote. 

I agree heartily witii what has been said 
about secret sessions being obnoxious, and i 
agree f^niher that it must be a very 
rare and extreme case where we should have a 
secret session at all ; but every one must admit that 
there may be occasions, and it seems there will 
probably be one occasion, at least, during this ses- 
sion, when, not on our account, but on the ac- 
count of the characters of some gentlemen whose 
names will be brought here, we should be able to 
give our reasons to "each other without the public 
being present. 

The gentleman from Illinois has given pretty fully 
the reasons for secret sessions, but he has omitted to 
state a very material reason which caused them to 
exist, conimencing as far back as the origin of 
the gi'and juries of the coimtry. There is no ex- 
ception ; they all sit secretly. 'Why so \ Xot only 
for fear of prosecution for the words used in debate 
in those bodies, but in ail lai-ge bodies there are 
always timid men, men who v/ili not speak out 
and avow their opinions openly and above-board 
as they wordd do when in secret"^ session. To some 
extent, I think, this has been carried too far, and I 
hope the day is not far distant v»^hen our own 
House of Bisiiops will sit in open session under 
a general rule" I say, let the nde be for 
both Houses open sessions, except when the ne- 
cessity is gTcat upon us for secret sessions. TThat 
does the report of the Committee say \ The report 
makes the rule of secret sessions apply whenever 
action on a Missionary Bishop is to take place. It 
makes it a rule that we shall necessarily go into 
secret session on such a nomination. To that I am 
opposed. I say it is an aspersion in advance on the 
character of everj^ gentleman whose name shall 
come down to us as a missionar;v' bishop, it pre- 
sumes in advance that something obnoxious is to be 
said about that gentleman, whoever he may be. 
whose name is sent to this House ; and therefore it 
is necessary in advance to declare that we ^vill go 
into secret session to hear it. I am opposed to any 
such rule. 

But what does the substitute offered by the gentle- 
man from Wisconsin say \ It leaves it in the dis- 
cretion of the House, if, perchance, any question 
may come up which, according to the sense of the 
House, the intelligence of the Rouse, the decency of 
the House, the respect for the character of other 
persons in the mind of the House, requires a secret 
session, to have a secret session. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Let me ask a question. 
Can we not do that at any time without a rule \ 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I am coming to that. 
It is really unnecessary to have any rule on the 
subject ; but the matter should be left to the dis- 
cretion of the House, and it should require a sepa- 
rate vote on each occasion to say that we shall 
close our doors. I take it that even without any 
rule on the subject, without this 17th rtde as re- 

gorted by the Committee, or the substitute offered 
y the Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin, this House 
at all times by a vote— probably it would require 
two-thirds — can have a secret session. I am told 
by a gentleman that it has been done heretofore. 



Any man's common sense should tell him that it 
can be done. 

The great thing I want to get at is to leave this 
que^aon on the necessity of the case. I do heartily 
hope that the substitute will be adopts i, and that 
the r yjort of the Committee as Rule IT will be voted 
down. 

Mr. MBIGo. of New Jersey. Mr. President, it 
seems to me that the question^in this case in regard 
to closing the do jrs is very easily adjusted. I un- 
derstand the question is. whether we shall sit with 
closed doors" when a nomination C'^rne- here 
for a missionary bisliop ; that is to say. shall 
we consider the nomination with closed dO'.n-^. in 
reference to the character of the nominee '. Thei-e 
is a way of settling the matter, which, it seems to 
me. will remove the ueces^ii;,^ for closed doois, and 
that is by the ballot : and I submit that the ballot 
of this bodj"" in regard to a candidate for a mission- 
ary bishopric will not be changed essentially by 
discussion. Members of this body, when they come 
to consider the propriety of agreeing to the nomina- 
tion of a missionary bishop. wiE. have made up 
their minds without having heard discussion. The in- 
formation of each member in ref^rd to any one who is 
nominated is usually full. It does not require discus- 
sion ; there is sufficient information without it ; a.nd 
the effect of ballotijag is really and effectually equiva- 
lent to acting with closed doors, i am opj)osed to 
the principle of closed doors, usually because I 
think it is not a necessity. i think it is 
contrary to all om' previous practice, and 
contrary to the principle recognized by this Church 
in giving publicity to everything it does : an d every 
man who represents the Church here should stand 
up faithfully and assume the responsibihty, if 
necessaiy. of saying such things as he ought to say 
conscientiouslj.- in each case. Therefore I hope we 
shall not sit with closed doors. 

Rev. Mr. STONE, of 'Delaware. Mr. President, 
before this substitute is acted upon I should like to 
improve it a little by a slight amendment, it says 
"whenever the discussion of personal character." 
In ow, sir. a man may have a very gpod character 
indeed, but may lack qualification, i move, there- 
fore, after the word ■"character '" to insert the words 
"or iitness." 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. Is a substitute 
amendal^le \ 

The PRESIDENT yro tempore. The Chaii' does 
not understand that the pending question is a sub- 
stitute, but an amendment to an amendment. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of W^isconsin. I wish to say 
that the first action was the moving of this article 
or Rule 17. Then there was an amendment brought 
forv/ard to that by Gov. Stevenson, cf Kentucky, 
I understand; and then I moved a substitute for the 
whole, and I'understand that is a substitute, not an 
amendment. Then I understand that the gentle- 
man from Illinois, Judge Otis, moved an amend- 
ment, which is now before the House. 

Mr. OTIS, of HUnois. No. I moved an indeihaite 
postponement. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair would 
like to know whethei' the gentleman from Delaware 
is right, whether the discussion is on an amendment 
or a. sutistitute, whether Dr. Adams' proposition is 
regarded as an amendment or substitute. The Sec- 
retary will read the record. 

Rev. Dr. ADAPTS, of Wisconsin. It was taken as 
a substitute last night. 

The PRESIDENT j;;'o ^emjjore. It cannot be a 
substitute, as the readin£~ of the record will show. 

The SECRETARA^. The journal reads : 

" The 12th rule of order being imder considera- 
tion, 

"Mr. Stevenson, of Kentucky, moved to amend 
the same by inserting after the word ' Bishop,' in the 



40 



second line, the following words : ' Or the subject 
of approving the testimonials or assenting to the 
consecration of any Bishop of a diocese.' 

"Rev. Dr. Adams, of Wisconsin, moved to amend 
the said amendment by striking out ail after the 
number of the said rule, as reported, and inserting 
instead thereof the following words, to wit : 

"When any subject whatsoever comes before 
this House necessitating the discussion of personal 
character, this House may, upon motion, resolve to 
sit with closed doors." 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I want to say 
a few words, Mr. President, because it seems to me 
that, in the hurry of taking this question, it is 
placed on the wrong basis. I think this is the most 
important rule of order that has been submitted to 
us for adoption. 

I do not understand with the gentleman from 
Maryland that this Church owes any allegiance at 
all to the outside world. I do not understand that 
the country has resolved itself into a jury, or into 
a political body to watch our conduct in 
this General Convention. Nor do I agree with 
the gentleman from Georgia that it is more proper 
to take an individual case, and make that ease 
odious by moving a suspension of the General Rule 
and putting the House in secret session, thereby 
inviting the suspicion of the country on the can- 
didate for the Episcopacy, than it '^is to have a 
standing lixed rule to which all must yield alike. I 
understand that the assent of this body on certain 
occasions is necessary to the consecration of a 
Bishop, and I understand that the duty of giving 
a certificate on that question implies a duty to 
inform ourselves as to the qualifications, the fitness, 
the wisdom, the gravity, the learning, the piety, the 
eloquence, the prudence, and the good sense of the 
gentleman who is named ; and on such an occasion 
as that, what is it that we are to certify 'i 

" We, whose names are underwritten, fully sen- 
sible how important it is that the sacred office of a 
Bishop should not be unworthily conferred, and 
firmly persuaded that it is our duty to bear testi- 
mony on this solemn occasion without partiality or 
affection, do, in the presence of Almighty God, tes- 
tify that A. B. is not, so far as we are informed, 
justly liable to evil report, either for error in reli- 
gion or for viciousness of life, and that we do not 
know or believe there is any impediment on account 
of which he ought not to be consecrated to that holy 
office ; but that he hath, as we believe, led his life 
for three years past piously, soberly, and honestly." 

This recognizes the duty on our part to enquire — 
not to enquire for the satisfaction of the outside 
world, but to enquire for the satisfaction of our own 
consciences, and so as to perform our duty to the 
Church ; and v/e cannot enquire sa.tisfactorily — we 
cannot put gentlemen upon their honor on tlie stand 
here before the world and a thousand i-eporters. 
We do not invite the world to come into these 
family councils of ours. It would be as absurd to 
invite the world to come and hear our dis- 
cussions upon the learning and personal quali- 
fications and personal fitness of a candidate 
for the Episcopate as it would for a gen- 
tleman who has a marriageable daughter, and 
a proposition is made for a union with her, and he 
has a council with his wife at night on the question, 
to invite the public to hear what each says to the 
other in regard to the fitness of the man 'who pi'O- 
poses to become a member of their family. A gen- 
tleman's name is sent down to us in nomination for 
the Episcopacy. One may think he has not learning ; 
another that he has not sobriety of conduct ; an- 
other that he has not prudence and discretion ; an- 
other that he has not wisdom ; another that he 
has not the unction that belongs to a Bishop. Must 
A man be called upon to arraign his friend here, 



it may be his bosom friend ? Must he be called be- 
fore the world to make an attack upon him ? I say 
this is a family of brethren, under the highest obli- 
gation of fidelity to each other, but at the same time 
the highest obligation of fidelity to the Church ; 
bound to speak the truth, but to speak in love, and 
not proclaim it to the world. Many a man is not fit 
to be a Bishop who, nevertheless, has a good char- 
acter. A friend might be compelled to say. upon 
his .conscience and his honor, in secret ses- 
sion, that he did not believe his friend 
was best fitted for that high office. I do 
not uiiderstand that the veil of secrecy is drawn over 
this body for the purpose of protecting it against 
prosecution for libel. It is to protect our actions for 
the good of the Church, and not for our personal 
selves, in order to get at the trutli. Gentlemen who 
speak of a brother under such circumstances must 
know that when they utter a word it will not be 
printed in the newspapers and telegraphed over the 
face of Christendom. Therefore I say that this rule 
touches us more nearly than any other rule which 
has been offered for our adoption, and it is a rule, 
in rny opinion, calculated to preserve the purity of 
the Episcopate, 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. Mr. 
President, the gentleman who has last spoken has 
anticipated me in some things that I intended to say. 
I quite agree with him that this is one of the most 
important rules of order which we can have. 

During the recess of this General Convention tes- 
timonials in favor of Missionary Bishops-elect and 
Diocesan Bishops-elect go before the different stand- 
ing committees throughout our country. Do those 
standing committees open their doors and let into 
their councils the outside world as spectators 
And will this larger body think of doing 
what the standing committees do not do? 
I am in favor of the rule as pi-oposed 
to be amended by the gentleman from Kentucky. 
I do not like the ingenious mosaic piece which the 
gentleman from Wisconsin has introduced here. If 
it be important to have a rale of order, let us have 
it in plain Saxon language so that everybody can 
rmderstand it, and that we shall not be misled. This 
rule of oi'der is not one which concerns our gene- 
ral deliberations. We may well open our Con- 
vention generally to spectators. We have admitted 
various persons here, but we have not admitted 
them to a conference upon the personal character 
of gentlemen who may be proposed for the Episco- 
pate. I trust we are making a rule of order not for 
this Convention alone but for future Conventions. 
I know nothing about what may come up imder 
this rule of order at the present Convention, and I 
care nothing about it. What I want is a rule of or- 
der to guide us now and hereafter, and guide us in 
wisdom. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY,_ of Georgia. I desire to 
say, Mr, President, that 1 shall advocate some rule 
which will enable this House to consider candidates 
for the episcopate in secret session ; and I say that 
because it lies within my own knowledge, and I am 
happy to say within the knowledge of very few 
other members of our Church, that there is now a 
member of the Clerical Order of our Church who in 
long years gone by was guilty of a grievous 
crime, and, I will add, grievously has he 
answered for it. I would not wilhng-ly bring up 
that heinous offence from its dead forgetf ulness 
of years ; but if the name of that gentleman were 
before this Convention to be confirmed as a Bishop 
of our Church, I should feel it my conscientious duty 
to lay before this House what I know of the past 
years of his life. If I am compelled to be put in a 
position of that kind, I desire to communicate the 
fact to as few members of the Church, and to only 
members of the Church, as may be necessary to pre- 



41 



vent his assuming the oflSce of Bishop. I have no 
doubt he has repented, and sincerely repented, of 
the offence of his early years ; but if he were be- 
fore us as a candidate for Bishop, I should say he 
was unfit, and if the time should come my lips raust 
be imsealed, and I should annomice to this House 
the reasons why I should oppose him. 

For this reason, I say, I desire to vote for some 
ride — and I do not care whether the one proposed 
by the gentleman from Kentucky, or the one offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin — some ride which 
will enable this House to sit lq secret session upon 
the character of candidates who come before it. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN", of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi- 
dent, before I begin, I should like to state clearly 
what I want to speak about. In the first place, 1 
am entirely opposed to the amendment introduced 
by my brother from WisconsLu (Rev. Dr. Adams). 
In the next place, I am entirely opposed to the amend- 
ment to the amendment of the Deputy from Ken- 
tucky (Mr. Stevenson) ; but I am not opposed to the 
rule of order, which I am prepared to vote for. The 
rule of order provides that this House shall go into 
secret session with regard to the election of a mis- 
sionary bishop. That rule has prevailed in. this 
House. I believe it has been the rule of this House 
to go into secret session whenever a missionary 
bishop was to be voted upon ; but whenever a man 
has been elected by a diocese and his name has 
come before the House, it has always been acted 
on in open session, and there is a reason for this 
difference. The one is the confirmation of a man 
ah'eady elected to an ofiQee, and the other is the 
election, and the two states are altogether different. 
To confirm is one thing, and to elect is another. Of 
coiu'se, when we go into an election for a bishop, it 
is very necessary that many things should 
be entered into. It is not only his doc- 
trinal qualifications, his personal qualifications, 
his moral qualifications ; but when a man is called 
upon to vote for a bishop he may have a great 
many other things to think of. Various things may 
come in question. Therefore, it is very proper that 
when a bishop is to be elected, his qualifications 
should be freely discussed ; but when a man has 
been already elected by a diocese, when all these 
discussions have been gone through w-ith, when he 
is sent up to this House not for election but for con- 
firmation, the whole range of enquiry is narrowed 
down. It seems to me it is narrowed into these 
two things — first, his doctrinal qualifications ; and, 
secondly, his moral qualifications. Is he a heretic ? 
or is he unfit morally ? and those are very grave ques- 
tions. When those things do come up, if ever they do, 
for discussion, it seems to me they ought to be discuss- 
ed in the very light of day. The discussion ought not 
to be in secret session. It ought to be '\vith the eyes 
of the whole world upon us, with the eyes of the 
Church upon us, with the sunshine shining in. If 
the person cannot be here to defend himself, at least 
he ought to have an opportunity of knowing what 
is said against him. I believe there were oiily two 
bodies in this world that ever discussed such ques- 
tions with closed doors, and those were the Star 
Chamber and the Inquisition. If we are going to 
discuss the qualifications of a man as to heresy 
or as to moral fitness, let it be done openly and 
in the presence of aU men ; and what my brother 
from the Diocese of Georgia said a moment ago 
is the more convincing. He said that there is some- 
body somewhere among the clerical orders who 
has been guilty at some time in his life of a terrible 
crime. He said, if that gentleman were to come up 
here for discussion, it would be his duty to bring 
forward something like that. \Yhat ! Is a clergy- 
man to be put on trial here without anybody to de- 
fend him, subject to what may be said in secret, 
with nobody to take his part excepting those who 



' may chance to be here, no lawyer to defend him or 
anything of that sort In such matters, let the 
charge be made in broad daylight and above-board. 

But, Mr. President, the rule of order provides 
that, in the case of the election of missionary 
bishops, the action shall be with closed doors, for 
: the reason that it is an election and not a confirma- 
tion. The House of Bishops nominates to us, and 
we elect ; and therefore, it seems to me eminently 
proper that in the one case we should sit with closed 
[ doors, and that in the other case we should sit with 
open dooi-s ; and so I am going to vote for the rule 
! of order and for no amendments to it ; and par- 
I ticularly I am opposed to the amendment of the 
Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin for this reason. A 
: rule of order, if I understand it, is a rule that is 
made for the daily orderly governance of the 
, House. It is that our business may be facilitated 
I and that it may be done with the more readiness. 
: Now, do we want a rule of order which says that 
1 whenever this House goes into the consideration of 
I questions affecting a man's personal character we 
i shall sit vvith closed doors, as though that was gene- 
i rally one of the ordinary businesses of this House < 
' We do not come here for any such purpose. We 
i may have to do it, I suppose ; but it is a very rare 
i exception, and we do not want any rule of order on 
I the subject, because this House can always go into 
j secret session if it wants to do so. 
j Therefore I oppose both amendments, and am 
i prepared to vote for the original ride of order, 
i Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. President, 
I I have during the course of my life seen the great 
: evil of discussing personal questions in relation to 
the Episcopate m the House of Deputies, with a pro- 
miscuous assemblage. I expect auditors on ordina- 
I ry occasions to be present ; but not on such an oc- 
I casion, for I have felt from time to time the neces- 
; sity of these discussions taking place with closed 
i doors. I felt it at the last General Convention when 
i a nomination was sent us. 

I I would ask my Rev. Brother from Wisconsin if 
an election by dioceses is the conclusion of the mat- 

\ ter, what do we do here ' I would, moreover, ask him, 

: is a diocese more competent to make an election of 
a bishop than the whole House of Bishops He is 

: willing to draw a distinction between a missionary 
bishop nominated by the House of Bishops and a 
diocesan bishop noniinated — that which we call a 

: rose by any other name would smell as sweet — 

I "elected," he calls it, I say " nominated, " because 
every man nominated by a diocesan convention has 
to pass two other bodies, either the standing com- 

: mittees, who always meet in secret session, or this 

j House and the House of Bishops. 

I Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. ,Do you 

I want an answer i 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I do not ask an 
answer ; but, when I am done, if you want to give 
any light on the subject, you may do so. [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Now, sir, I am opposed to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Rev. Dr. Adams), 
simply because of one word in it. K he would con- 
sent to change that word, it woidd entirely alter my 
whole course. I never want a ride of order in an 
important matter of this kind which has 
"may" in it. I want a "shaU," and 
that takes away all the odium of the motion to 
close the doors which I had to endure at the last 
General Convention ; but, thank God, I scarcely 
heard a dissenting voice then. But when the orders 
of the day came up the day after, a motion was 
made to act with open doors. Why ? Because it 
was said of the outside public they wanted to be 
present and hear all that was said. A motion 
was made to reconsider that resolution 
for the purpose of having it rescinded. 



42 



That motion, by a tremendous majority, I believe, 
was voted down. It happened that the House of 
Bishops withdrew the nomination because the Rev. 
Brother who was then nominated for Africa was an 
important member of the Board of Missions, and 
especially of the Committee on Foreign Missions, 
and he was retained, until at last wisely the Bishops 
sent him to the Indian district ; and then how was 
their action met ? In secret session, by standing 
committees. Take the elections of diocesan bishops, 
as they are called elections ; if they had been elected 
six months before this Convention met, how would 
they have been disposed of ? In secret session by the 
standing committees ; but now forsooth we are the 
committee to act, and we are afraid to act our- 
selves. 

Another thing I want to say to my reverend bro- 
ther from Wisconsin, and to every gentleman who 
has objected to this rule ; and it is, that I have a 
conscience, and, so help me God, I never will sign 
the testimonial of a man for a bishop until I am 
clear and conscientious in saying before God, in 
whose presence I may very soon appear, that I be- 
lieve him fit for a bishop. 

We have had in the House of Deputies three in- 
stances of men elected as Bishops being sent back. 
There was the case of Mr. Ogden, of Trinity Church, 
elected the first Bishop of New Jersey in 1795. A 
question arose and in this delicate way it was 
brought up ; and finally the House wisely got rid of 
it by sending him back to his own diocese, and 
nothing was afterwards heard of him. A similar 
case took place in 1844, quorum pars fui. I was 
much censured for the course I pursued, I know, 
but not by my conscience, and, I trust, not by 
my God. It was the case of one of the dearest 
friends I had in the Church, and I thank God that 
the course I then pursued never lost me his friendship, 
but he had the magnanimity to honor me for it, and 
to the day of his death he was my bosom friend. I 
loved him, and I love his memory. I allude to the 
late Dr. Francis L. Hawks. In 1844 his name came 
before the Convention. All of us who ever heard 
him Imow his eloquence — ^the silver tones united 
with the diapason of his voice — and we Imow also 
his ingenuity. He made a speech, and if the ques- 
tion had been taken at that moment the House 
was not in a condition under his speech to act upon 
it. It adjourned wisely. I went to my lodgings 
and communed with none but my God. I knew 
facts which I thought ought to be fatal to my 
friend, so that he should never be consecrated Bi- 
shop of Mississippi or a Bishop in the Church, with 
aU his talents. I deliberated ; I spent a sleepless 
night. I came to the House next day, sitting in St. 
Andrew's Church, Philadelphia. I was Secretary 
of the House at the time. I said to the President, 
" Sir, as soon as the House is ready for business and 
the order of the day is to be taken up, will you give 
me the floor ^" "I wiU, sir," he replied. I performed 
my duty as Secretary, and then came down from 
the vantage-ground of the platform to the middle 
aisle, and I said what I knew and what would pre- 
vent me from signing the testimonials. Nay, in my 
usual forcible way when I want to express a thing 
strongly, I said, "Sooner than I would sign those 
testimonials I would lay my hand upon the block 
and let a butcher with his cleaver sever it from my 
body." I am not calculated for a stump-orator. 
[Laughter.] "Then," said 1, "I would hold up 
the bleeding stump and say, 'Forbear ! for- 
bear. Do not sign the testimonials of this man.'" 
He was my friend. My heart bled that I had to say 
it ; but I had a conscience, and I have a conscience 
yet, I thank God, and I trust I shall carry it clear 
and pure as possible, sanctified by the blood of the 
Redeemer, at the last day before the judgment-seat 
of Christ. 



I On these grounds, I say, let us have a rule which 
I shall make it imperative ; and if a case be so clear and 
! distinct as not to require a session with closed doors, 
a two-thirds vote of the House will suspend the rule 
i for the occasion; but let us have a rule so that others 
■ shall not be put to the necessity which I have been 
! put to, of standing forth to be censured by many 
persons as a bold, daring, impudent man, because 
I have a conscience and I am sent here to exercise 
that conscience in behalf of the Church. I would 
lay down my life for the Church; but I wiU never 
sacrifice my conscience while the Church requires 
me to act for it. 

The Senate of the United States, when the Presi- 
dent sends them a nomination, close their doors. 
Why ? Because the character of the individuals, 
their fitness for office, is to be discussed. I hold, 
further, that in all deliberative bodies acting in 
secret session, everything transacted is sub rosa, 
and no man, without violating every principle of a 
deliberative body in secret session, can wliisper to 
his dearest friend outside what was said inside. 
I want to have the opportunity to express my 
opinions — if I have them adverse to a nomination, 
freely ; if I have them in favor, freely — before I 
sign a testimonial either for a missionary or a dio- 
cesan bishop. Therefore, I say that, if my brother 
from Wisconsin (Rev. Mr. Adams) will alter his 
proposition to "shall" in all cases, I will most 
cheerfully accept his substitute and vote for it, and 
entreat every member of the House who has a con- 
science, and feels that he has it, to act, not before 
oi TToAAot, the multitude, although they be the 
families of clergymen. It is said of the fami- 
lies of clergymen that sometimes they make 
the worst citizens in the world [laughter], but 
because they are the families of clergymen and we 
have authorized them to come here during our pub- 
lic sessions, it will not do to say that we cannot 
have any secret, private conference. That is a per- 
fect absurdity, and it must commend itself to every 
man present as an absurdity, and I hope that, by a 
large vote, that principle will be voted down, and 
that we shall adopt this rule of order. 

Rev, Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I am perfectly 
willing to accept the verbal alteration proposed by 
the Rev, Dr. Mead. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi- 
dent, when aged men recount the exploits of their 
youth, it becomes younger persons to keep silence 
and to wonder and admire; and yet I have no doubt 
that a marvelling and v/ondering Church has, ever 
since the year 1844, marvelled that any body of men 
should have rejected from its Episcopacy, even 
though the reverend gentleman from Connecticut 
was the leader of the movement, a man who 
holds so high an estate in the memories of 
the Church as the Rev. Francis L. Hawks, ll.d., 
who sometime was the historiographer of this 
Church. But the reverend gentleman from Con- 
necticut did not mention one fact which made his 
argument not quite as plausible as it seemed. All 
that bi-avery of his was exhibited in open session. 
If he had a conscience, he was not afraid to speak it 
out ; and so I say, Mr. President, let us follow his 
good example in that respect, even if we cannot 
agree with his judgment in the other. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, 
I understand that the suggestion made by the 
Clerical Deputy from Connecticut has been adopted. 
Am I right ? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. (Rev. Dr. Wil- 
liams, of Georgia, in the Chair.) Yes, sir. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Then, as a rule, 
it will be obligatory in every case, if it be passed ? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Unless two- 
thirds dispense with it. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I will omit the 



43 



word upon motion," so as to read " shall sit with 
closed doors. " 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment 
will be so modified. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I chanced to be 
in the Convention referred to by the Clerical Deputy 
from Connecticut. The impression made there 
upon the community was such that I am satisfied 
every gentleman present in this Convention will vote 
for sitting with closed doors on such occasions. I 
remember the argument then, and especially do I 
remember the argument of Horace Binney. It 
made a deep impression, and one of the most pain- 
ful character. 

But I thmkthe House is prepared to vote. I will 
merely ask them to recall the experience of thi-ee 
years since when we decreed to sit tvith closed doors. 
Those who were present can easily recall the testi- 
mony that was borne there to the character of the 
gentleman who was under consideration, but whose 
health was such that we concluded to ask the House 
of Bishops to withdraw his name. All that discus- 
sion is fresh to the minds of many here, and I am 
sure the experience we gained three years since, that 
induced the Committee to bring in this amended 
rule, will enable us now to vote in favor of making 
it a permanent rule. 

Mr. BRUNE, of Maryland. Mr. President, I 
would say a word or two on this subject. I am very 
unwilling to speak upon any question, as this House 
may understand, for I am sure I am very little 
known to most of the members. But there is a 
point that has not been presented by the able gentle- 
men who have already spoken, clerical and lay, to 
which I beg to call the attention of the House ; and 
that is this : We have first the choice of the present 
amendment of the Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin. 
That has been changed this morning at the last mo- 
ment, whether rightfully or wi'ongfully, according 
to parliamentary usage, is a matter of no import- 
ance to me ; it has been changed in a most import- 
ant respect by the substitution of a single word, 
" shall " for "may," changing the whole aspect of 
the question, as will be seen at once. Now, what 
is the effect of this change ? The effect is to completely 
overturn the rules that we have hitherto been gov- 
erned by. The objection, before the change, to the 
measure of the Rev. gentleman was that it seemed 
to be unnecessary, because we may by a special res- 
olution or order provide for closing the doors on 
any occasion, and do it by a simple majority, 
whereas to change a rule, according to the rules 
we have begun to adopt to-day, would re- 
quire two-thirds. If we had adopted his 
substitute with the word "may" in, I pre- 
sume it would authorize us, as a rule of order, 
when a question of character was before the 
House, by a simple majority vote, to sit with closed 
doors. And what would be the effect of that ? It 
has been described by the learned Deputy from 
Illinois. Look at the broadness of the question. 
Whenever character is involved, we shall sit with 
closed doors. It seems to me the answer to such a i 
proposition is the mere statement of it. Suppose it t 
is "may," the objection to that is that the rule can I 
be suspended ; we can sit with closed doors by a j 
vote of two-thirds upon any question whether of ■ 
character or not. Then why shall we have a stand- ! 
ing rule upon the subject. That presents the ques- ■ 
tion as it stood under the old rule, and | 
as ib is proposed to be amended by | 
my distinguished friend from Kentucky ; and it 
seems to me, in spite of the eloquent language of the ! 
Deputy from Wisconsin (Rev. Dr. DeKoven) that ! 
the Deputy from Kentucky was wise in his amend- i 
ment. In spite of the language of the most eloquent 
gentleman from Wisconsin, I think there is no fair, | 
clear distinction between our action upon a bishop I 



elected from a diocese and coming here with the en- 
dorsement of a diocese, and upon the nomination by 
the House of Bishops of a missionary bishop. I, for 
one, say that either is not a recommendation to me, 
but is conclusive, unless there are some hidden cir- 
cumstances, such as have been touched upon by the 
venerable gentleman from Connecticut, that would 
induce the House to go against such certificates. 

But now we come to the question whether there 
should be any rule at all upon the subject ; and on 
that point I say that I occupy a different ground 
from the most eloquent member from Wisconsin. 
I see no substantial distinction between the case of 
a missionary bishop and the case of an elected 
diocesan bishop, and therefore the enquiry 
is whether we should have a standing rule 
at all which makes it imperative that we 
should sit with closed doors whenever we 
have to deal with such a question. We ought not 
to assume that any diocese will elect any man with- 
out going fully into his qualifications ; and we are, 
as it were, bound to accept that as the most substan- 
tial, if not conclusive, proof of fitness. So in the 
other case, when a missionary bishop is sent 
down to us from the House of Bishops, you 
and I are to enquire as to the propriety 
of that nomination. We can do either 
one of two things on such an occasion. We can 
provide, when it arises, for an emergency. I would 
not anticipate it now, and I would not provide any 
general standing nile for such an extraordinary 
case as has been touched upon. I was not old 
enough to be in the Convention which dealt with 
the case of that most distinguished Presbjrter, who 
perhaps has had honor in the Church quite as large 
as if he had been upon that occasion confirmed as 
a Bishop. But I say, if there should such a 
case occur again, we can deal with it in 
one of two ways, which are both simple 
and without the slightest difficulty. If two-thirds 
of the House think upon such an occasion that we 
should sit with closed doors, either in reference to a 
missionary bishop or in reference to a diocesan 
bishop, we can do so ; but I for one cannot see why 
the bold, independent, eloquent, and revered Pres- 
byter from Connecticut cannot just as well do his 
duty in the sight of God and before this Church 
with this House sitting on such an occasion with 
open doors, as after a motion to sit with closed 
doors. If there should be such an occasion again — 
which I trust there never will be — I should say it 
was a case where everything that shoidd be said 
should be openly said, and not be liable to the slight- 
est misconstruction. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I had intended to say one word in relation to 
the memory of the venerable and beloved Dr. 
Hawks. The absence of the Deputy from Connecti- 
cut prevents my adding a few words of a historic 
character relative to that convention to which he 
referred. Not wishing to prolong this discussion, 
and he being absent, I forbear the remarks I had in- 
tended to make. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President, 
I have no purpose of entering into the character, 
canonically speaking, of the action of the House of 
Bishops or of this House in the election of a mission- 
ary bishop. Neither do I intend now to call the 
attention of this House to the decided distinction 
there is between the election of a bishop by a dio- 
cese, and his subsequent confirmation by this House, 
as distinguished from the gift of jm-isdiction which 
can only be conferred by the Provincial Synod of 
Bishops of this National Chm'ch. These things I 
shall pass over. I also pass over all the reasons why 
at the election of bishops secrecy ought to be main- 
tained, at least during the session of those who elect 
him. That I may speak of hereafter, but not now. 



I merely appeal to universal human experience. \ 
I find that the great Council of Laodicea (whose | 
Canons were confirmed, and so became of CBCumeni- j 
cal authority at the great CEcumenical Council of ' 
Chalcedon) enacted that elections should always be 
held in private, and that was the summing up of the 
experience of the Church in all her provinces t 
throughout Christendom for centuries. I need ■ 
not point the learned gentlemen of this House j 
to the facts of ancient primitive his- j 
tory. We know that then as now men were men | 
with a strong spice of the old Adam in them. We j 
know that then as now there were irregularities i 
that made the faces of men blush. We know that ' 
what happened then may happen now, if it has not ! 
happened in this Church ; and I call on the reverend | 
clergy here present, and also the honorable laity, to [ 
say whether that experience of the Christian Church 
then, and never contradicted to this hour, it is | 
worth while for us deliberately to reject. j 
One other thing. It is the experience of parlia- j 
mentary bodies, as I am informed— I never had the j 
honor to belong to any of them— that they find, j 
when nominations are sent to them, that decency, i 
expediency, courtesy, require that they should sit j 
with closed doors. I ask, then, the members of this i 
House whether in a matter so grave, so delicate, so ! 
complicated, so infinite in the questions it may bring I 
up, as that of the fitness of a man to exercise the | 
oflSce of bishop in the Church of God, it is not best to i 
ignore the gay, careless spectator, and whether we | 
ought not to handle the subject with the delicate ten- | 
derness of fathers, or rather of brethren ? At the i 
same time, I must say that I am unwilling in this 
matter to leave personal character to the expressions 
of two classes of men who have been alluded to on 
this floor. One class is the timid men. God help 
the timid men who need the courage of secrecy to 
tell the truth. Men have no right to be timid in 
this House. I honor the noble Deputy from Connec- 
ticut for what he has said as to how in bitterness of 
soul he was compelled to resist the election 
of his own friend. I honor him for it, and I 
honor no man who would not do the same. 
There is another class, however, whom I would de- 
fend from themselves. I should not say that the 
fact existed if it had not already been alluded to on 
this floor. It is the class of men who talk wildly, 
who are ready to bring in careless accusations re- 
ceived from anonymous witnesses, perhaps in ways 
they would dislike to teU. Sir, I want the secret 
session upon this subject, but I want also a record 
of every word, of every syllable here spoken, for it 
is unhappily the case that any man standing 
upon this floor, even if he were a member of it, 
chosen bishop of a diocese, would be regarded as 
being guilty of an indiscretion if he were to defend 
himseK on this floor ; it would seem to unfit him 
for a bishopric. We know what has been said on 
that subject. I trust that such a thing may not be 
necessary. In the case of a missionary bishop who 
might not be upon the floor at all, it would 
be still worse. He has no chance whatever of 
saying what he has to say in his own defence. I would 
have the record here stenographically preserved as 
I said yesterday, usque ad literam, that he might 
have it to defend himself elsewhere if not here, so 
that when the mitre is not his, and he can no longer 
be suspected of bidding for its honor, he may never- 
theless have the right of vindicating his doctrinal 
character as a priest, his personal character as a 
man. I, therefore, trust that the amendment of 
the honorable Lay Deputy from Kentucky will pre- 
vail, and then I trust this House now or at a later 
hour will provide for keeping a stenographic report 
of its secret debates. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Mr. President, 
I ask your indulgence and that of this House for 



one moment. I think one point made by the ven- 
erable Dr. Mead, of Connecticut, was conclusiA^e as 
regards the analogy between this General Conven- 
tion and the Standing Committees. It is perfectly 
conclusive to my mind. But one point escaped him, 
a fact of history which I know he will recollect 
as '"soon as I call his attention to it. It happened 
in 1847, when the Diocese of Illinois sent the name of 
a gentleman here, as elected to be Assistant Bishop 
of that Diocese. Character was not at all involved, 
but there were certain points. I do not wish to go 
over those points, but they in no way touched the 
character of that gentleman as a man of God, as 
worthy to work in the Church of God, but still, in 
the judgment of the General Convention, it was 
thought that he ought not to be confirmed as 
a bishop. These things being openly spoken 
would not have injured his character, but might 
have injured his influence in the position in which 
he then was, and yet those points influenced the 
General Convention. The world outside would not 
have looked upon him in the same way in certain 
matters, but his character was perfectly unim- 
peached, as it was unimpeachable. The case was that 
of the Rev. Mr. Brinton, who was in 1847 sent here by 
the Diocese of Illinois. I believe then, if the General 
Convention had sat with closed doors, it would have 
been better. I adduce this circumstance simply to say 
that I am in favor of the original rule as proposed to 
be amended by the gentleman from Kentucky, and I 
am not in favor of confining it to the specific point 
of character. I do not think that character is 
necessarily involved, but it may come in ; but 
there are a great many other points which also may 
come in, and which we can here discuss better 
amongst ourselves. It is not to protect ourselves, 
but to protect a clergyman who ought to be pro- 
tected because he is worthy of all honor except 
that of the Episcopate. For this reason I shall go 
for the original rule of order as amended by the 
motion of the gentleman from Kentucky. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. Mr. 
President, I rise simply to take exception to an as- 
sertion which was positively made here by the Lay 
Deputy from Pennsylvania — ^namely, that the se- 
cret session held in Baltimore was in all respects 
satisfactory. I speak in the presence of many who 
were Deputies to that Convention, and I assert that 
the character of that secret session was not satisfac- 
tory to very many of us. I call others to bear 
me witness that the turn which the debate 
took was regarded as very unfortunate, and 
that there were cries of protest from members on 
the floor as to the assertions which were being 
made. And, sir, I say here in this Church that I 
left that House pained with the character of the dis- 
cussion, and pained by the influences which were 
brought to bear there to prevent our going into an 
election when the name of a godly, learned, and 
noble man had been sent down to the House. I left 
the church building with pain, and I then vowed 
that I never would agree to go into such a secret 
session again. This is all I have to say. 

Rev. Dr. BURR, of Ohio. Mr. President, I have 
a word to say as to the practical bearing of this 
question. You may close your doors, but here is a 
great assembly, and how will it be possible for them 
to conceal or keep secret what shall be here spoken? 
It would be better to speak it openly at once. If I 
I have occasion to speak of the character of a person 
here nominated by the House of Bishops or sent 
I here by a diocese, I would much rather that my 
words should go correctly to the public as sent forth 
by the reporters, who are making such excellent 
reports of our doings, than go to the world through 
the garbled form in which what is said will other- 
wise necessarily be scattered abroad. 
It is not possible for us to accomplish the object 



45 



which is intended to be accomplished by the closing 
of the doors. Gentlemen talk about the world as 
though the world came in here. The world is a 
very wide world. The Church is a very wide 
Church. And who is this world that comes inhere ? 
I suppose the audience in the galleries, and those 
who come in as spectators, are as much 
entitled to respect as we ourselves are ? 
The}'' are members of the same Church 
for the most part. They are not different from 
ourselves. They are not the bad world we some- 
times speak of. They are the Christian world that 
hears what is said, and it is right that they should 
hear what is said. I want to disabuse the minds of 
those who have heard this debate, for one would 
suppose that the galleries were filled with bad 
people, and that we must speak in whispers, and 
not let them hear us. Sir, they are as good 
as we are. They are as much interested in 
the aif airs of the Church as we are. We have been 
elected to come here and legislate, but there are 
others looking on upon our proceedings just as 
worthy as we are, just as wise as we a.re, just as 
competent to judge as we are, and just as careful of 
what they shall say of our doings here, and of our 
speeches here, as we shall be. It is therefore I say 
you cannot accomplish the object which you have 
in view in closing your doors. But suppose it be 
expedient to do so ; suppose a case may 
arise at any time when it would be 
best, wisest, and most prudent to close 
the doors, can we not do it ? Are we forbidden 
to sit with closed doors under the old rule 'i Cer- 
tainly not. We have sat in some cases with closed 
doors. I hope the old rule will stand. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin, obtained the 
floor. 

The PRESIDENT pro tern. The hour has arrived 
for the recess, and the House takes a recess for one 
half -hour. 

After half an hour's recess the House resumed its 
session. 

RECEPTION OF FOREIGN VISITORS. 

The PRESIDENT. This is the hour fixed for the 
reception. 

The Committee appointed to present the Rt. Rev. 
George Augustus Selwyn, d.d the Lord Bishop of 
Lichfield ;theRt. Rev. Ashton Oxenden, d.d., Bishop 
of Montreal and Metropolitan of Canada ; the Rt. 
Rev. James William Williams, d.d.. Bishop of Que- 
bec ; and the other English and Colonial clergy in 
attendance on the Convention, appeared with the 
distinguished visitors, who were escorted to the 
platform and received by the President. 

The Deputies rose to receive the distinguished vis- 
itors, and remained standing till they retii-ed. 

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen of the House of 
Deputies, I have the exceeding gratification of in- 
troducing to you once again the Rt. Rev. the Lord 
Bishop of Lichfield, whose name is dear and fami- 
liar beyond the bounds of Christendom as well as 
within them, and is now especially dear to all Am- 
erican Churchmen. 

The LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD (who was 
greeted with great applause). My dear brethren, it 
was my wish that you should allow the Province of 
Montreal, Canada, to address you first, for the very 
natural reason that the Metropolitan of Canada 
brings an address from a whole province of 
our Church, while I regret to say that I 
only present addresses from my own dio- 
cese. Feelings of delicacy would have prevented 
me from taking any precedence over so large a body 
of our fellow-churchmen as the bishops and clerical 
and lay representatives of the Province of Canada, 
but your President has ruled otherwise, for reasons 
which I have no doubt are good in his own mind, 
and therefore I proceed at once to present to you 



the addresses which have been drawn up by the 
archdeacons and rural deans in my Diocese of Lich- 
field, with the assurance, that you may perhaps 
think unnecessary, that every word which I shall 
now read to you represents the very cordial feeling 
of those who have attached their names to these me- 
morials. The first is a memorial from the Arch- 
deacon and Rural Deans of the Archdeaconry of 
Stafford, which I will read : 

" The Archdeacon and Rural Deans of the Arch- 
deaconry of Stafford to the Right Reverend the 
Lord Bishop of Lichfield : 

"My Lord — We cannot allow your Lordship to 
leave the diocese for the purpose of being present 
at the Provincial Synod of the Church of Cand;da, 
and at the Convention of the bishops and clergy of 
the United States of America, without assuring 
you of our earnest desire that you may, by the 
blessing of God, have not only a prosperous voyage 
and safe return, but the fullest measure of comfort 
and benefit from your communion with Churches 
so intimately connected with our own by common 
origin and unity of doctrine and discipline. 

" We further beg your Lordship to convey to 
those Churches our brotherly greeting, and the^ as- 
surance of our sincere desire and prayer that they 
and the Church of this land may, in Christian love 
and zeal, promote the glory of God and the good of 
mankind. 

" We would add how much satisfaction we shall 
have in offering a loving and hospitable welcome to 
any members of those Churches who may attend 
the Conference in England, which, we understand, 
it is one great object of your Lordship's visit to pro- 
mote. 

(Signed) 

H. MOORE, Archdeacon of Stafford. 

LOVELACE STAMER, r.d., of Stoke-on-Trent. 

GEORGE MATHER, r.d., of Cheadle. 

H. SUTCLIFFE, r.d., of Newcastle. 

J. FINCK SMITH, m.a., r.d., of Walsall. 

J. H. ILES, M.A., Rural Dean, of Wolverhampton, 

F. S. BOLTON, B.D., Rural Dean, of Stafford. 

WILLIAM J. HALL, m.a.. Rural Dean, of Trysull. 

ADELBERT J. R. ANSON, r.d., of Himley. 

J. W. MARSHALL, r.d., of Handsworth. 

T. R. O. BRIDGEMAN, r.d., of Brewood. 

C. P. GOOD, R.D., of Eccleshall, 

A. F. BOUCHER, r.d., of Leek. 

T. A. BANGHAM, r.d., of Lichfield. 

C. P. WILBRAHAM, r.d., of Penkridge. 

R. M. GRIER, R.D., of Rugeley. 

A. BROWNE, R.D., of Tamworth. 

E. J. EDWARDS, r.d., of Trentham. 

N. J. PEACH, R.D., of Tutbury. 

W. HUTCHINSON, r.d., of Uttoxeter." 

Of these names, many here will remember Mr. 
lies and Mr. Bangham and Mr. Edwards, who were 
with me at your last General Convention, and the 
latter of whom is here now. 

The second address which I have the honor to 
present is from the Archdeaconry of Derby : 

" Lichfield, July 1874. 
" To our Brother Churchmen in Canada and the 
United States : 

"We, the imdersigned. Rural Deans of Derby- 
shire, in the Diocese of Lichfield, desire to convey 
through the Right Rev. George Augustus, Lord 
Bishop of Lichfield, on the occasion of his visit to 
the Church in Canada and the United States of 
America, the expression of our true sympathy and 
fellowship with them as brethren in Christ. 
EDWARD B ALSTON, d.d., Archdeacon of Derby 

and Rural Dean of Bakewell. 
EDWARD HENRY ABERNY, b.a.. Prebendary 

of Lichfield and Rural Dean of Derby. 



46 



R. M. JONES, M.A., Vicar of Cromford and Rural 
Dean of Asliover. 

GEORGE HULL, b.a.. Vicar of Chapel Entsforth 
and Rural Dean of Castleton. 

AUGUSTUS ADAM BAGSHAWE, m.a., Cantab., 
Vicar of Wormhill and Rural Dean of Buxton. 

HENRY JAMES PEILDEN, Rector of Kirk Lang- 
ley and Rural Dean of Radborne. 

SAMUEL ANDREW, Vicar of Tideswell and Rural 
Dean of Eyam. 

G. VERNON MELLOR, Vicar of Jaridgehay and 
Rural Dean of Wirthworth. 

T. A. ANSON, R.D., of Cabley. 

J. D. MACFARLAINE, r.d., of Staveley. 

J. K. MARSH, Vicar and Rural Dean of Brampton. 

N. H. DEACON, Vicar and Rural Dean of Alfreton. 

G. ARTHUR FESTING, m.a., Vicar of Clifton and 
Rural Dean of Ashburne. 

MARISCHAL K. S. FRITH, m.a., Vicar of AUer- 
tree and Rural Dean of Duffield. 

JAMES THOMAS ALDERSON, Rector of Raven- 
stone, Rural Dean of Hartshorne. 

F. C. FISHER, Rector of Walton-on-Trent, Rural 
Dean of LuUington. " 

The third address which I beg to present is from 
the Archdeaconry of Shropshire. It is signed by 
all the rural Deans of the Archdeaconry of Salop, 
in the Diocese of Lichfield, nine in number, viz, : 
the Vicar of Gt. Ness, the Rector of Middle, the 
Rector of Donington, the Minister of St. Mary's, 
Shrewsbury, the Rector of Hodnet, the Vicar of 
Wellington, the Rector of Edgmond, the Rector of 
Cressage, the Rector of Whitechurch, J. A. 

"Lichfield, July 31, 1874. 

"We, the undersigned. Archdeacon and Rural 
Deans of Salop in the Diocese of Lichfield, grateful 
to God for the fatherly loving-kindness and wise 
oversight of our Reverend Missionary Bishop, and 
humbly desiring that the Divine Spirit may bless 
his unceasing labors for the brotherly intercommun- 
ion of the Churches of Christ, desire to send affec- 
tionate greeting to the Bishops and pastors of the 
Church on the other side of the Atlantic, by the 
mouth and hands of our Diocesan. 

"JOHN ALLEN, B. BANNING, 
C. D. KENYON, C. F. C. PIGOTT, 

G. H. EGERTON, FREDERICK BURD, 

H. G. DE BUNSEN, W. H. EGERTON." 
THOMAS B. LLOYD. 

I have the greatest pleasure, my dear brethren, in 
presenting these addresses to you, the more so be- 
cause this is the second time when I have had the 
opportunity, by God's providence, of placing before 
you these expressions of brotherly sympathy and 
love from the Church on the other side of the water. 
I am sure if I had been able to procure the same 
kind expressions of opinion from the more distant 
Churches with which I was formerly connected, the 
Churches in Australasia and New Zealand, they 
would all have been to the same tenor, for I am con- 
vinced of this, that throughout the now widespread 
limits of our Anglican Communion, there is, at the 
present moment, one prevailing feeling of brotherly 
love and Christian harmony and concord, with 
earnest prayer offered up from all the branches of 
our Church that it may please God to extend that 
feeling more and more, day by day, and unite us 
evermore, day by day, in the bond of peace and 
in brotherly love. 

This is all that I have at this present moment to 
say to you, except to remind you of one most inter- 
esting occasion which has occurred since I met you 
last, and that was the presentation of the alms- 
basin, which was furnished in the city of Baltimore 
as a memorial of the visit of the English Deputation 
to the General Convention in that city in the year 



1871. It was my happiness to present that alms- 
basin to the Archbishop of Canterbury in con- 
cert with one whose loss we all lament, 
who is now with God in his rest. Bishop Mcllvaine, 
of Ohio, who, hand in hand with me, each of us 
.holding the alms-basin by one hand and on bended 
knee, presented that alms-basin for the Lord's table 
in St. Paul's Cathedral, on the 4th of July. On 
that occasion, I thought I could not do better than 
to send by the electric telegraph to Bishop Potter, 
the Bishop of the Diocese of New York, a telegram 
containing these few words, limited, of course, to the 
smallest possible range on account of the cost of the 
mode of conveyance, but expressing, therefore, so 
much more the concentrated feelings of our hearts. 
The words were these : 

" Bishop Selwyn to Bishop Potter : 

" Alms-basin presented in St. Paul's Cathedral, 4th 
of J uly. Independence is not disunion. " [Applause. ] 

If, my dear brethren, you should desire to take 
up one thought of a practical kind which occurs in 
these addresses, it is perfectly true that I have come 
in the earnest hope that my presence here, and that 
of my dear brother, the Metropolitan of Can- 
ada, may tend to bring to a point the ques- 
tion now being mooted in England, of the 
repetition of the Lambeth Conference of 
1867, which 1 believe in my conscience and in my 
heart to have been the very greatest event that has 
happened for the benefit of our Protestant Episco- 
pal Church since the time of the Reformation. If 
you should be pleased to take up that question and 
express any opinion upon it, I am sure it would 
give great gratification to all those in England who 
desire on every possible ground, social, broth- 
erly, public, that the Bishops of all the va- 
rious branches of our great Anglican Communion 
should meet again on English soil, under the presi- 
dency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to consult 
for tljp good of our whole Church, for the extension 
of its work throughout the world, for the appeasing 
of all strife among ourselves, and so for furthering 
all those purposes which our Divine Lord has given 
us to do, and to aid us in which He sent down from 
heaven His blessed Spirit. 

I have nothing more to say on the present occa- 
sion but to assure you of my own unabated feel- 
ing of brotherly love towards you all, and to hope 
that my visit here again with my dear friend Mr. 
Edwards, who comes a second time for that pur- 
pose, may not be altogether miproductive of bene- 
ficial results. [Applause.] 

The PRESIDENT. I have now the pleasure of 
introducing to you the Most Rev. Lord Bishop of 
Montreal and Metropolitan of Canada. 

The LORD BISHOP OF MONTREAL. My Breth- 
ren and Mr. President, I beg leave to say that it is 
to me a matter of very deep interest and of heart- 
felt joy that I have been permitted to attend the 
meeting of this grand and great Convention. When 
I first arrived in the city of New York on Tuesday 
evening, I confess to a feeling of loneliness in enter- 
ing your great and gorgeous city ; but that feeling 
of solitariness left me as soon as I entered the vast 
and noble congregation that met me in this chapel on 
the following morning. I then felt that I was among 
beloved brethren, brethren of a sister Church, and 
may I not sa.y almost brethren of the same Church 
as my own, for these two Churches, the Church of 
England in Canada and the Protestant Episcopal 
Church of the United States, are in point of fact 
almost identical. Their outward form is nearly si- 
milar. We hold together the same great and glori- 
ous and precious definite truths, and we worship 
together under the same blessed forms which we 
both look upon as our mutual inheritance. We of 
the Church of Canada, I can assure you, look with 



47 



great admiration upon your Church, because of 
its Constitution, which I believe is as perfect 
and symmeti-ical as human minds can devise. 
That Constitution, we remember, was formed some 
eighty years ago, and it has served as a soi't of mo- 
del upon which have been since fomided the various 
forms of Church Constitution in our Colonies. 
Truly, I may say so as regards the Church of Cana- 
da, the Church in New Zealand, and the Church in 
Australia. 

Then we also admire your Church for its onward 
progress, for its detei^mlnation, in God's strength, to 
go forward and continually make an agressive 
movement in this, its land. We remember that 
SQiae three-quarters of a century ago there was but 
one diocese of the Episcopal Protestant Church in 
this land, and now that Episcopate has been multi- 
plied fifty-fold. We earnestly desire to copy your 
zeal in that respect, and to be a progressive and an 
advancing Church, an aggressive Church. 

But we admire, most of all, your zeal and earnest- 
ness and devotedness in uplifting the cross of 
Christ and bringing sinners to the common Saviour ; 
and it is for this reason that, at a late meeting of the 
Provincial Synod of Canada, of which I have the 
great honor to be the President, an address was 
agreed on to be presented to this Convention. I was 
charged with that address in common with my friend 
and brother, our Prolocutor ; and although I have con- 
ceded to him the honor and privilege of presenting 
that address to you— having already presented it 
myself to the Upper House — I still feel that I stand 
here in a somewhat public capacity, as representing 
the Church of England in Canada. 

And now, my Christian friends and brethren, I 
desire to thank you for having listened to me ; I de- 
sire to thank you for having admitted me to-day 
into your House ; and I desire earnestly to pray 
that it may please God to pour out upon you largely, 
in your deliberations at this time, towards which the 
eye of the Church is directed, the spirit of wisdom, 
forbearance, Christian gentleness and union, dxid of 
Christian and spiritual holiness. I trust that this 
meeting of the Convention may be the means, under 
Him, of promoting His glory, and of advancing the 
great interests of the Church in this land. [Ap- 
plause.] 

The PRESIDENT. I next present the Right Rev. 
the Lord Bishop of Kingston. 

The LORD BISHOP OF KINGSTON. My friends, 
I come among you to-day in a position which I 
scarcely wish to occupy in one respect, representing 
only myself. I am the Bishop of a small Island, 
not measuring more than a hundred and forty miles 
in length, not including in it more than about half 
a million inhabitants, and in which I have not 
the oversight of more than about one hundred 
church-stations ; but I have come here simply 
upon the invitation of a single individual 
Bishop of your own Church, with whom I have had 
the honor of forming a warm friendship and at- 
tachment, and I have been able to reconcile with 
other arrangements visiting New York just at the 
time of all others at which I should naturally desire 
to do so. In truth, I feel myself almost 
overwhelmed already by the warmth and kind- 
ness of the reception which I have person- 
ally experienced. I sincerely say that I could 
wish for no better spirit to prevail in any 
branch of the Church of Christ, with which I have 
ever been acquainted, than that which seems to me 
to be existing here, at least among those with whom 
I have had the pleasure of meeting. It is true, as 
yet, I have to make the acquaintance, I hope, of a 
good many more of the presbyters of this Church. 
In the upper House I have been almost overwhelmed 
with kindness, and this, I must say, I think to be no 
light matter. Truly it is the mutual love which 



we, as f ellow-woi-kers with the Lord Jesus Christ, 
have one to another. It is to this we are to look to 
overcome all differences that may still subsist be- 
tween us, and cement us yet more closely into a 
more perfect organization. Still, whatsoever is want- 
ing in the completing of our machinery for carry- 
ing out the same purpose for which we are associ- 
ated, even here, I find, in the United States, your 
Church has not attained an absolute perfection of or- 
ganization. You are occupying your time still with 
questions of great importance in rendering that 
organization, in your own judgment, more perfect ; 
and you are invited to debate, you have been just 
invited to debate to-day, by my Right Reverend 
Brother, the Bishop of Lichfield, whether you 
cannot do more to cement your union with all the 
other branches of the Anglican Church, by meeting 
in conference in another land, or it might be, by- 
and-by, perhaps, here also. But what is the founda- 
tion of all this but that love of a common Chris- 
tianity which we share ? 

I wish I could, upon this occasion, assure you 
that I am speaking the sentiments of the Clergy of 
my own Diocese. They were not aware of my in- 
tention to come here, nor was I myself, at the time 
of the meeting of our last Synod. I may, however, 
be permitted to say that, having been one of a large 
number of Bishops assembled from different parts 
of the West Indies in conference the other day, we 
united in praying the Archbishop of Canterbury 
ere long to take such steps as would effect the 
meeting of another conference at Lambeth. 
Mainly for this reason, let me assure you that we 
all have felt that our union with the other branches 
of the Church cannot be complete so long as only 
the Church of England and the Church of the Colo- 
nies immediately connected with England are af- 
fected. We need your presence, your sympathy, 
your co-operation, too. We did not see how we 
could be linked on to all branches of this great 
Church, to which we are dearly attached, unless 
you joined with us. And I would earnestly 
pray that the time may come when such 
meetings as this at which I have the pleasure of 
being iDresent may be seen to be but the anticipa- 
tion of a time yet to come, when the Bishops, the 
clergy, and the laity of the great Church of this 
land, and the Bishops, the clergy, and the laity of 
other branches of the same, shall meet together in 
conference, and exchange brotherly greetings with 
mutual prayers for God's blessing on each other, 
such as that in which I have the happiness of taking 
my humble part now. [Great applause.] 

The PRESIDENT. I now present to you the 
Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Quebec. 

The LORD BISHOP OF QUEBEC. Mr. President 
and my very dear Brethren : After what has been 
said by our Metropolitan, who speaks by right of 
place for the Canadian Church, and whose name 
lends the weight of personal esteem and of a charac- 
ter well and widely knov/n to the authority of his 
ofiice, I should not have ventured to obtrude 
myself upon this Convention. Since, however, 
your courtesy makes occasion for me to introduce 
myself with my own voice to those whose acquaint- 
ance I have come so far to make, I avail myself 
gladly of the permission to tell you, in few words, 
how much my spirit rejoices to join with you in the 
communion of worship and of counsel which be- 
longs to the brotherhood of Christ, to tell 
you with what a thrill of joy in the 
warmth of your fellowship I feel my heart throb 
with the common pulsation of the one body wherein 
we are all members one of another. Our presence 
here to-day is, and is intended to be, a token and a 
testimony of our respect for the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church of the United States of America, and 
those of us who are deputed by the Provincial 



48 



Synod of Canada are charged further to consult 
with you in such manner as to you shall seem expe- 
dient for the furtherance of a still closer union be- 
tween these two branches of Christ's Holy Catholic 
Church, yours and ours. 

I must confess that, although I had willingly for 
the reasons I have indicated undertaken to form 
one of this deputation, this latter part of our office 
seems to me a little superfluous, for though there 
may be, for all I know, certain accidents and details 
of intercommunion admitting of smoother adjust- 
ment, yet the substance of the unity in the one 
body and the one spirit I am right sure now we 
have. Freely at the Lord's table, without let or 
hindrance, the brethren intermingle ; freely the cler- 
gy pass to and fro and minister in the cure of souls. Of 
the closeness, the completeness of the organic unity 
of this connection, I am in my own person a living 
witness, for when I was called and commissioned to 
be a Bishop in the Church of Canada, upon my head 
was laid the honored hand of him who was of late 
the presiding Bishop of the American Church. 

We are here, my very dear friends, as witnesses 
to manifest a unity which does exist ; we are, some 
of us, to consult, if need be, for drawing yet closer 
the bonds of that unity in all cases. The unity of 
the Spirit we endeavor to keep, and I am persuaded 
shall keep, in the bonds of peace. [Applause.] 

The PRESIDENT. We have present with us, I 
am happy to say, and I beg to introduce to you, the 
Lord Bishop— 1 should say, the late Missionary 
Bishop — of Zanzibar. 

BISHOP TOZER. I am very glad to say that 
I have a point of agreement which none of my 
brethren from abroad have with you in the 
United States, from my never having been a Lord 
Bishop, and I am very glad that I am so far a re- 
publican that that title could never legitimately and 
truly appertain to me. [Laughter.] 

At this late period of the proceedings I cannot 
detain you by a speech. There are many standing 
before me who have been standing a long time, and 
I am sure at a very great inconvenience ; and it 
would be less than human to say that one was ex- 
ceedingly interested in the sight before one, that 
one was exceedingly interested in the proceedings 
of this Convention, and that one was hopeful that 
they would issue in the greater solidity of the Church 
and the greater charity exhibited by one member 
towards another. 

el have nothing more to say than that I thank you 
extremely for the kind way in which you have 
allowed me to appear before you this morning. 

The PRESIDENT. I next present Reverend 
Dr. Geddes, Prolocutor of the Chui-ch of Canada. 

Rev. Dr. GEDDES. Mr. President, Reverend 
Brethren, and Brethren of the Laity : I appear 
before you in an official capacity. The Most 
Reverend the Metropolitan of Canada has already 
informed you that we come bearers of a message of 
Christian love and warm affection from the Church 
in Canada to the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
the United States, as represented in your august 
and venerable body. I shall first of all read that 
address, and then, with the permission of your Pre- 
sident, I shall venture to offer a few observations : 

" To the Right Reverend the Bishops, and the Cleri- 
cal and Lay Representatives, of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church of the United States : 
" The Provincial Synod of Canada, now in ses- 
sion, desires to send its very hearty and fraternal 
greeting to the Right Reverend the Bishops, and the 
Clerical and Lay Deputies, of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church of the United States, and earnestly 
prays that their approaching General Convention 
may be so blessed by Almighty God, that by their 
means His truth may be established, and His king- 



dom advanced, through the length and breadth of 
the United Stafces. 

(Signed) 

A. MONTREAL, 

President. 

J. GAMBLE GEDDES, 

Prolocutor. 

CHARLES HAMILTON, m.a., 

Clerical Sec'y Prov. Synod. 

P. MACKENZIE, 

Lay Secretary. 
Montreal, 11th September, 1874." 
I need scarcely say that the address you have just 
heard, necessarily short, expresses very inadequate- 
ly the warm and earnest and hearty interest felt by 
the Church in Canada in the prosperity of the 
Church in the United States. We, as Canadian 
Churchmen, have with feelings of admiration and 
gratitude, I may say, to Almighty God, seen the 
mighty growth of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in this great and growing country. We recall the 
struggles she had to make, and manfully did she make 
them, during the earlier period of her history, 
when, holding the vital principle of the Primitive 
Church, sine episcopo nulla ecclesia, she was yet 
deprived of the Episcopacy, and was obliged for a 
long time to spend her strength in loneKness and 
discouragement. "Her vineyard the wild boar of 
the wood appeared to be rooting up ; her hedges 
were broken down, and everybody that passed by 
plucked off her grapes. " This was her sad and lone- 
ly condition then, and now what do we behold ? 
A church with her nearly threescore Bishops, 
her three thousand Clergy, Priests, and Dea- 
cons, her noble body of loyal and devoted Lay- 
men, and her tens and hundreds of thousands 
of communicants — a mighty and a powerful host 
combined to carry forward the standard of the 
cross, "fair and beauteous as the moon, and terrible 
as an army with banners." We look at the records 
of her history, and see the catalogue of those great 
and holy men whose memories shed a lustre upon 
the page of her history, commencing with the daunt- 
less Seabury, the Father of the American Episcopate, 
the memorable White, the noble-hearted Hobart, the 
accomplished Hopkins, the eloquent Doane, the 
courtly Wainwright and Delancey, the saintly 
and venerable Bishop of Ohio, Mcllvaine, the 
good and learned and legal minded Whitehouse, 
men who by their learning and their zeal and their 
piety would adorn the Episcopal Bench of any 
Church in Christendom. [Applause.] When we 
survey these things we feel proud of your achieve- 
ments as a Church. We feel proud of our relation- 
ship to you, the younger sister, the two sisters, 
daughters of the beloved, venerable, and venerated 
mother, the dear old Church of England. [Great 
applause.] 

Engaged, then, in the same holy work with your- 
self, having the same anxieties and encouragements, 
the same hopes and fears, we come here to ask your 
sympathy and your prayers ; and we come to offer 
you in return our poor prayers and our heartfelt 
and warmest sympathy. 

In the name of the venerable Archdeacons and 
the reverend clergy who form a deputation with 
me, in the name, I may say, of the whole Church in 
Canada— for the Metropolitan will authorize me, I 
trust, to say so — we bid you God-speed in your 
great and holy work. We say to you in the lan- 
guage of the Psalmist, ''The Lord prosper you 
we wish you good luck in the name of the Lord. 
[Applause.] 

The PRESIDENT. The venerable Archdeacon 
Fuller I now present. 

Archdeacon PULLER. I had not expected to 
have the honor of being presented to this body this 
afternoon, but it being urged upon me by my dear 



4i) 



old friend Dr. Shelton, I could not resist the privi- 
lege of addressing you a few words. 

1 desire, on behalf of the Church of England in 
Canada and in all the Colonies of Great Britain, 
to thank you, the members of the Church in 
the United States, for the privileges that 
we enjoy as having Synods in every 
colony of the British Empire. It is a curious fact that 
in 1836 — so long ago as that — I ventured, though 
then a very young man, to write a pamphlet on the 
question of the Canadian Church. It was entitled 
" Thoughts on the Present Condition and Future 
Prospects of the Church of England in Canada." I 
depicted our then condition, a weak and feeble 
body, entirely dependent upon the great Society 
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign 
Parts, which had the privilege under God 
of planting the Church in this very country. 
I say we were then dependent upon this 
Society for the support of all our clergy. I saw 
that this could not long last ; I saw that we should 
soon be thrown on our own resources, and I asked 
myself the question, How shall we be able to meet 
our wants when that day arrives ? I looked, my 
dear friends, to the Church in this country. 
I saw that you had gone through the same 
process. I saw that the steps that you had 
taken were blessed by Almighty God to 
the building up of the Church in this 
land, and I felt that we could do no better than fol- 
low your example. I therefore suggested that we 
should call the laity into the councils of our Church. 
Our late venerated and able Bishop, Dr. Strong, 
took the matter up and threw it into a practical 
form, and in 1853 we had, in the Diocese of Toronto, 
the first Synod of the United Church of England in 
the whole world, and now, thank God, Synods are 
to be held in every colony in the British Empire ; 
and we owe it all to you, under God, that such is 
the case. 

I desire also to have an opportunity of expressing, 
on behalf of the Church of England in Canada, our 
deep obligation for the social relations in which we 
have been placed for a great many years. I had long 
the privilege, of being a neighbor of one who stands 
well, one who is venerated by all this assembly, 
the Rector of St. Paul's Church, Buffalo. He has 
done more than any other man that I know of, to 
bind closely together the kindliest feelings between 
the Canadian Church and the Church of this 
country. [Applause.] And I thank God that this 
is the case. 

T^ese are the only things that I deem it necessary 
to address to you on this occasion, except to say 
that I agree most fully with my friend, the Prolo- 
cutor, in all he has said in regard to our earnest de- 
sire that God's richest and best blessings may rest 
on you. [Applause.] 

The PRESIDENT. In the Venerable Archdeacon 
Balch you will recognize an old friend, who, I be- 
lieve, will be glad in his present condition to ex- 
change greetings with the members of the Church 
to which he so lately belonged. 

A-rchdeacon BALCH. Mr. President, it would 
not be good taste for me to occupy many mo- 
ments of your time, reverend and dear brethren ; 
but I feel constrained, as a sense of duty to the 
dead, to say one word. I am persuaded that no 
heart in this large congregation and this vast repre- 
sentative assembly from every part of the wide do- 
main of the great Republic but has felt quickened 
in its impulse of sjnnpathy and enlarged in its 
spirit of charity by what has already preceded. 
It was my privilege and honor to introduce 
into the Provincial Synod the resolution which has 
resulted in the presence of this delegation to-day ; 
but I am not entitled to the credit of inaugurating 
and bringing to a certain degree of success the 



great work of making these two sisters as one. 
That belongs to the wise and the great Bishop Ful- 
ford, the first Metropolitan of Canada. Several 
years ago he moved her Majesty's Secretary for the 
Colonies, the late Duke of Newcastle, to introduce 
and have passed thi-ough the Imperial Parliament 
an enabling-act, whereby the Parliament of Canada 
could remove all legal disabilities to the residence 
of Amei-ican clergymen within the bounds of the 
Church in British North America,, and he saw that 
act consummated, and himself gave expression to 
the delight which he derived from it at the Con- 
vention of 1865 when he addressed this body; and 
in the pi-ovidence of God it happened that I was the 
first American clergyman called under that new 
state of things to hold an official position in 
Canada ; and I am only in some humble de- 
gree endeavoring to carry out that work which 
he so wisely and so successfully inaugurated. And, 
beloved brethren, if any man could have the spirit 
of prophecy and lift up his eyes to the time when 
Asia and Europe, crossing the Continent, must fas- 
ten their eyes upon the free thought, free speech, 
free press, and the unfettered Church of this conti- 
nent, is it not within the bounds of more than proba- 
bility that the free institutions and the Church regu- 
lations of this country are ultimately to be the 
I means imder God of vastly extending and increas- 
! ing the knowledge of Christ ? When we reflect that 
j from Maine to Florida that venerable and noble Soci- 
I ety for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign 
I Parts have shown their sense of stewardship 
to this continent, and when we reflect that the gift 
I of an English Queen has enabled a noble coi pora- 
i tion to dispense on such a grand scale the charities 
j of the Church in this diocese, surely when a dele- 
i gation from a large portion of another English 
I Queen's dominions are present to give assur- 
i ances of sympathy and regard, we are not sur- 
j prised at the earnest welcome,, the hearty, cor- 
dial greeting, with which they have been re- 
i ceived. 

' On behalf of my reverend brethren of this dele- 
! gation, I shaU close these few remarks by saying 
that our gratification and happiness on this occa- 
j sion can only be excelled when ia the providence 
: of God we can welcome a similar delegation on the 
! fioor of the Provincial Synod. [Applause.] 
I The PRESIDENT. I now present to yoa the 
j Rev, Mr. Edwards, of Trentham, England. 
! Rev. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, friends of 
! the Clergy and Laity, in this Synod assembled : I 
I trust I shall not be considered to be indulging my 
j own personal feelings too far if I say that I have 
j never adverted in conversation or thought to any 
day so bright and so eventful in a life so uneventful 
j as that of a comitry clergyman in the diocese 
1 of Liclifield, as that day when I was allowed 
: by the kindness of the Bishop of Lich- 
I field and through your permission to address you a 
! few words in Emmanuel Church in Baltimore. 
I Little did I deem that that great privilege would be 
! accorded to me a second time. I am conscious that 
' such a bright sunny day cast a gleam across the 
i broad Church-path, gave me a sense of the glorious 
i brotherhood of the Christian Chm^ch which I had 
! never felt before, which I still feel, and which I 
I trust I shall feel to my last hour. [Applause]. 
! No one can have the pleasm^e of travelling in your 
; Western States, and breathing the quickening air of 
j a distant diocese like Nebraska, without feeling his 
! frame invigorated by breathing the air that comes 
I across those wild plains ; and it is no less intelligible 
I that, "cribbed, cabined, and confined," as possibly 
the mind may become in the parochial routine of a 
1 country parish, it may feel a wholesome enlarge- 
1 ment when it finds itself in th^-presence of so many 
i with whom one is permitted in some sen^e to labor 



so 



in tlie same cause as he may be attempting to do on 
the other side of the Atlantic. 

What one feels more and more is the necessity 
for increased personal intercourse. Letters are 
very well ; addresses are also very well ; but we 
need to see each other face to face, if we are to be- 
lieve one another, and to acquire confidence in one 
another, which is only, I think, to be had through 
getting acquainted with our fellow-men, and learn- 
ing their difficulties and imparting our own to 
them. We want something of that spirit which 
animates the comrades of a regiment who have 
toiled together in the long campaign, and then 
know that they may trust to the backing of their 
friends when the day of conflict arrives. [Ap- 
plause.] 

I earnestly hope that we may take advantage 
more and more of the facilities for personal inter- | 
course, which surely belong to the Church as well ' 
as to the purposes of trade, and that we may be 
brought together more and more than hitherto on 
your side and on our own, that we may understand 
of what metal we are made on either side ; and I ' 
trust that should this expected Lambeth Conference 
draw any of those whom I see befoi-e me to-day to 
our shore, my cup will be filled to the brim in the 
satisfaction of seeing you not only in England, but, 
as I trust, in om" own Diocese, possiblj^ under the i 
roof of a country clergyman. [Applause.] | 

Before I release you from that position which a ' 
Bishop some time ago felt it was a pain to him to i 
witness — and how much more, therefore, must a \ 
Presbyter feel the like diflaculty may I say on be- j 
half of those of my brethren of the clergy who ac- ' 
compauied the Bishop of Lichfield in 1871, that they ! 
greatly would have enjoyed a repetition of their | 
visit, as I most certainly have done, but the duties i 
of a parish and the cares of home throw things of i 
one kind or another in their way. One. of them, j 
as you know, is — I will iiot say in a i 
penal settlement [laughter], and yet it was a i 
penal settlement, but he is at Norfolk Island, carrj^- | 
ing on the great work originated by his father [ap- j 
plause], and now being carried on with all that 
truth and energy that belong to a young man, still i 
in the prime of life, devoting his first and best en- i 
ergies to the service of his Lord, and following in ! 
the steps of his great father. [Applause.] \ 

I beg most respectfully to apologize for the deten-. 
tion which I have been guilty of, and to thank you j 
once more. i 

The PRESIDENT then presented successively the \ 
other members of the Canadian delegation, and the | 
clergymen accompanying the Lord Bishop of Lich- | 
field, who had not spoken, and all having been pre- 
sented the distinguished visitors were escorted from 
the platform to the body of the hall. 

INTERCOMMUNION WITH CANADA. 

The following message (No. 4) was received from 
the House of Bishops : 

" Whereas, A Joint Committee was appointed by 
the late Provincial Synod of the Dominion of Cana- 
da, held at Montreal, consisting of the Most Rever- 
end the Metropolitan, and the Lord Bishop of Que- 
bec, together witji the Prolocutor, Rev. J. Gamble 
Geddes, Rev. Henry Roe, of Quebec, C. J. Brydges, 
Esq., of Montreal, Ai'chdeacon Fuller, of 
Toronto, Chancellor Henderson, of Ontario, Arch- 
deacon Balch, of Huron, Rev. Canon Ketchum, of 
Fredericton, Hon. C. P. HiU, of Nova Scotia, to con- 
fer with some similar Committee of the Church in 
the United States on the best measures to promote 
intercommunion and fellowship between the sister 
Churches; therefore, 

'* Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), That a joint committee, consisting 
of three bishops, three presbyters, and three laymen, 



be appointed to confer with this joint committee of 
the Provincial Synod of Canada, and if practicable, 
to report to this Convention. " 

And it has appomted as the joint committee on 
the part of the House, the Bishops of Long Island, 
Ohio, and Western New York. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move 
that this House concur, and that the Chair appoint 
the J oint Committee on the part of the House. 

The motion was agreed to, and the President ap- 
pointed Rev. Dr. Mead, of Connecticut ; Rev. Dr. 
Rudder, of Pennsylvania ; Rev. Dr. Vinton, of 
Massachusetts ; Mr. Fish, of New York ; Mr. Rug- 
gles, of New York ; and Mr. Meads, of Albany, the 
Committee on the part of the House of Deputies. 

REPORT ON MISSIONARY BISHOPS' FUND. 

The PRESIDENT. We are about to introduce a 
matter very appropriate to the exercises in which 
we have just been engaged, the report of the Trus- 
tees of the Missionary Bishops' Fund. I am not will- 
ing that we should enter upon the order of the day, 
because that might pass over the time when it would 
be possible to ofl:er this report. I am told by the 
gentleman who has it in charge that it is obliged to 
be offered on this second day of the session. I will 
ask the consent of the House, therefore, to have the 
report presented. It requires no action. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I move that we post- 
pone the order of the day for that pm^pose. 

The PRESIDENT. By general consent that may 
be done. The Chair hears no objection. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. Mr. President, I 
regret that the Chair made some remarks in regard 
to this report, because they are calculated to create 
a false impression in reference to the matter of 
which the report treats. I regret to say it is not in 
the power of the Trustees of this fund to make a 
favorable report at all. Therefore, it was a 
cause of regret that I heard the President 
say that this was an appropriate occasion to make 
the report. The facts are that thus far the Canon 
to provide a competent f imd for the support of the 
Missionary Episcopate is not a practicable Canon, 
and therefore it has not brought forth any practical 
fruits ; but I trust that the importance of the sub- 
ject of which this Canon treats will hereafter cause 
it to be taken up, and so amended as to make it 
practicable in providing a fund for this great, in- 
creasing, and important object. With these few 
preliminary remai'ks I will read the report of the 
TiTistees : 

"The undersigned. Trustees of the Missionary 
Bishops' Fund, beg leave respectfully to report : 

"That in conformity with the duties devolving 
upon them under the Canon, they prepared an 'Ap- 
peal ' to the Church at large for contributions to the 
fund, a copy of which is hereto annexed, and that 
they caused the same to be published in the Church 
papers as generally and as long as they found it 
practicable to do so without expense. I'he result, 
however, has been far from satisfactory, as but 
very few persons responded to the call. The names 
of those who did so will be found in the Treasurer's 
account, hereto annexed, the total amount of dona- 
tions having been $256, which, with interest to the 
present time, now amounts to the sum of $298 81. 

" It is quite evident to the Trustees that, if a per- 
manent fimd is ever to be established for the Mis- 
sionary Episcopate, some legislation by the Conven- 
tion will be necessary to make the Canon on that 
subject more practical and effective. 

"It is made the duty of the Board of Missions, 
through its committees, to pay over to the Trustees 
all sums received by them for the purposes designa- 
ted in this Canon ; but as nothing has been received 
from these committees, the Trustees presume that no 
sum has been thus specifically given, and that the 



51 



committees have had to use ail their energies and 
influence in the parishes in order to provide for the 
present support of the missionary bishops, so that 
they could not give attention toward soliciting for 
a permanent fund. 

" The parishes constitute the proper field in which 
to labor for replenishing the treasury of the Church, 
and the rectors, the officers to whom we must look to 
inculcate in their people a proper appreciation of the 
Chm-ch's need of money, as well as of their duty to 
supply it through those channels which the General 
Council of the Church couunends to their support. 
It is evident that the parishes or rectors do not re- 
cognize that an}^ obligation is imposed upon them 
by this canon, for there has been but one contribu- 
tion (f 5) from a clergyman since the last Conven- 
tion. 

'•The Trustees respectfully submit to the General 
Convention whether the Canon shall be so amended 
as to require an annual collection in each parish for 
this object. 

"The Missionary Episcopate is rapidly extending, 
and the question of its support is assuming serious 
importance. Without some systematic provision to 
secure funds, the present Canon seems to the Trus- 
tees to be practically useless. 

"AU of which is respectfully submitted, 

CAIUBRIDGE LIVINGSTON, 

HENRY MEIGS, 

WM. H. BATTLE, 

L. N. WHITTLE, 

New York, October 7, 1874." 

RULES OF ORDER. 

The PRESIDENT. The regular order is now be- 
fore the House, being the 17th proposed rule, and 
the question is on the amendment of the Deputy 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Adams). 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I do not intend 
to make any speech otherwise than I have spoken 
before. I will repeat what I said before, and be- 
fore I utter those few sentences I will, at the sug- 
gestion of a distinguished friend, request that I have 
the liberty of changing my amendment from "ne- 
cessitating discussion of " to "involving considera- 
tion of." I suppose I am at liberty to do so. 

I will not undertake the discussion of what 
gentlemen have said on this floor in reference to 
what I yesterday said, but I will say this much, that 
with regard to any bishop that comes before us for 
our signatures — as we have to sign the testimonials 
— we have the right to the most full discussion of 
every personal qualification he has or has not for 
the episcopate. 

It has been said by my colleague on this floor, 
the clerical gentleman from Wisconsin, who spoke 
twice this morning, that there were two matters 
with regard to which this House could testify — error 
in religion and viciousness of life. I have looked 
at the form, and I find that we are to testify to 
these two facts : that he "is not justly hable to evil 
report for error in religion or for "^viciousness of 
life, and that we do not know or believe there is 
any impediment on account of which he ought not 
to be consecrated to that holy office." That is to 
say, we go into the whole question of canonical im- 
pediments to consecration. How extensive that 
question is, every one who has examined the sub- 
ject of ordination or consecration to the Episcopate 
knows. It involves, I believe, nine or ten distinct 
canonical impediments. That is a little more than 
my distinguished friend from Wisconsin thought we 
were to testify to. And then, in order to finish 
up the enumeration, we ourselves are to testify to 
his piety, sobriety, and honesty ; that is to say, 
we are to give our testimonials in addition to all 
this, that he is pious, that he is sober, that he is 



honest, ' ' that he has led his life, as we believe, for 
three years last past piously, soberly, and honestly. " 
Therefore, Mr. President, this House and every 
; member of this House, has to come forward and 
I testify to the most complete list of canonical, moral, 
! and religious qualifications in reference to a cajidi- 
date for the episcopate. From this very fact we 
ought to have the privilege of having brought be- 
fore us, fuUy and distinctly by any person on the 
floor of this House, everything whatsoever that is 
connected with that large i-ange of qualifications. 

Now, Mr. President, to give an instance, here is 
one gentleman from the Diocese of Georgia who 
, has brought up an instance which he knows person- 
ally of a clergyman who years ago committed a 
great crime ; undoubtedly he has repented of it, and 
yet that gentleman would be fully authorized to 
bring up that crime as an impediment under the 
laws of the Church, and by our present arrange- 
ments he would have to do it before all the multi- 
tude. 

Again : there are smaU matters, which small mat- 
ters are imj^lied in the words "piously, soberly, and 
honestly." I could instance a clergyman who un- 
doubtedly was one of the ablest men of the 
Church, a man of distinguished talents and distin- 
guished eloquence, and yet that man had so much 
; of the spirit of jest and joke about him as 
would in the opinion of every man of his 
acquaintance disqualify him for the Episco- 
pate. If he were alive now and were to come 
up before this House, do you think that I or 
any other gentleman in this House would feel that 
before the representatives of the press, before a 
; miscellaneous congregation here, we should come 
: out and say that the spirit of joking and jesting was 
' not convenient, and make ourselves liable to be rep- 
' riraanded in the press for that? I have heard also 
i of clergy in former times who were not 
' very sober, of some who perhaps had 
: been too desirous of the world's fruits. 
, The most appropriate and most suitable manner 
j of presenting such matters would be after shutting 
out all but ourselves. Having done that, we can go 
; into a discussion of aU those matters of personal 
! character which may be impediments which we 
can speak plainly before our brethren of the clergy 
and laity, but which we do not want to speak be- 
fore a mixed multitude, much less before the rep- 
resentatives of the press. The personal defects which 
disqualify canonically a man for the episcopate I 
would not bring up in the presence of many persons. 
Why would I not bring them up ? Simply for the 
reason, I will say to this assembly of clergymen and 
laymen, that during the last twenty years there has 
taken plaxje in the press of these United States the 
greatest deterioration capable of existing. I say 
that the sensational daily press of these United 
States should be shut out from all discussions involv- 
ing personal qualifications or disqualifications for 
any office in the ministry, and I say so because 
it has been my own experience, and I 
believe is the experience of every man in the 
United States that has read any report in the sensa- 
tional daily papers of any Convention whatever, 
for an election to the Episcopate, that there is utter 
hatred against the Church and utter contempt for 
all holy things in the sensational daily press. 

It is for that reason that I have brought forward 
this among the mles of order, and I believe there is 
not a clergyman or a layman in this Convention 
who wiU not understand and feel that there should 
be the fullest liberty for the discussion of the 
personal qualifications of any man who comes 
before us as a candidate to receive that 
testimonial which we have to give, and that 
we ought to protect any clergyman from 
the insults or abuse with which he is liable to be 



§2 



trampled upon by that deteriorated press, the vilest 
press on the face of God's earth, the most infamous 
that the world, the flesh, or the devil ever could get 
up. 

I beg leave now to withdraw m^^ amendment in 
favor of Governor Stevenson's amendment. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Then I wish 
to propose an amendment which I think Governor 
Stevenson will accept, as it i-educes the nmnber of 
words and covers the ground. The only proposi- 
tion I have to offer is : 

'* That whenever the election or confirmation of 
a bishop is under discussion, the House shall sit 
with closed doors." 

It merely reduces the number of words in the rule. 
If Governor Stevenson will accept this, I will say, 
let it be his. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I accept it. 
[" Question. " " Question. "] 
Rev. Dr. BEERS, of Albanv. Mr. President— 
The PRESIDENT. If this question is to be 
further discussed, I must ask that some gentleman 
will move a postponement of the consideration of 
this 17th rule until to-morrow, to enable the House 
to pass the whole body of rules, with that exception, 
before we adjourn to-day. There are a number of 
committees to be appointed under these new 
rules, and the who-e list of committees is wait- 
ing upon our action here to be printed. We should 
finish this matter to-night. ["Question.'' "Ques- 
tion."] 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Vfisconsin. Can we not 
pass the amendment of Mr. Stevenson as ac- 
cepted ? 

The PRESIDENT. I think so ; but the gentle- 
man from Albany claims the floor. 

Rev. Dr. BEERS, of Albany. I wiU not detain 
the House long. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I move that after 
the gentleman from Albany closes his speech the 
vote be taken. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that at the end 
of the speech made by the Rev. Deputy from 
Albany the House shaU take the question. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. BEERS, of Albany. It seems to me, 
Mr. President, that since the discussion of this ques- 
tion was commenced, the speeches have taken a 
range that has carried the attention of the House 
entirely away from the true issue. There are two 
sides to this question, and a good deal to be said 
truthfully on both sides. There are very grave 
difiiculties attending a discussion of the character of 
a nominee sent to this House for the Episcopate 
of our Church ; but I am fully persuaded that 
there are vastly graver difficulties that will 
arise if this Convention shall conclude, in this 
year 1874, to go back to a condition of things that 
was not tolerated eighty years ago, and veil its dis- 
cussions and actions in secrecy from the public ; I 
will not say from the world, because the Church is 
not gathered within the walls of this place where 
the General Convention holds its session. The 
Church is all over this land everyM^here, and 
we are but its representatives, acting in its 
name and for its interest in everythmg we do. 
If it were practicable to establish a rule of absolute 
secrecy, the case would be different ; but every man 
acquainted with public affairs knows that it is abso- 
lutely impossible to stop the leakage of such a body 
as this when an important question that agitates 
men's passions and their convictions of duty is im- 
der discussion. It woul(J be a great deal better that 
the matter debated here should go out just as it oc- 
curred in the House, than that it should filter out 
through gossip and in whispers colored and dis- 
torted with suppressions and innuendoes that would 
make the whole case different, and embarrass the ac- 



j tion of the Church in the confirmation of nominees 
i to the Episcopate infinitely beyond what that action 
j has ever been embarrassed before. 

Now, the truth is, Mr. President, that the most 
rigorous searching — close scrutiny — is had in the 
I election in the Diocesan Convention. To be con- 
I sistent, we ought to make a provision for secret ses- 
1 sions there, if anywhere ; but there eveiything is 
j open and in sight of the sun, as I believe, before 
I heaven, it ought to be ; that it is for the health of 
1 the Chm'ch that it ought to be ; that it is for 
I brotherly kindness and the spirit of charity that it 
! ought to be. 

j It has been said that it is important for the pro- 
j tection of the nominee that the sessions should be 
j secret. It seems to me this is not the case. Any 
gentleman who chooses to permit himself to be 
placed in the position of a nominee for the episco- 
{ pate of the American Church, by so doing accepts 
j all the conditions of scrutiny that attend the pass- 
age of his case through the General Convention in 
the House of Deputies ; and I contend that it would 
attach a deeper and a darker stigma to the name and 
character of a clergyman rejected in this House 
1 who had been nominated to it for the episcopate of 
I any diocese, where the session was secret and where 
j as far as possible the grounds of his rejection were 
I sealed under a veil of secrecy, than if the whole 
question was open before the Church and world, and 
he was rejected simply because in the judgment of 
this House, for various reasons that did not touch 
his moral, perhaps not his intellectual or clerical 
character, we had decided on om- conscience before 
God that we thought him not a suitable person for 
the high office and holy work of the episcopate in 
our Church. 

j Again, there is one consideration that it seems to 
I me we are to bear in mind, and it is this : That 
j finally, after the Diocesan Convention has had an 
open scCTitinj^, after the General Convention has 
had an open "^scnitiny, though you should go back 
and veil the scrutiny from the world, there comes 
1 the most solemn period in the whole transaction. 
The nominee has been approved, his testimonials 
signed, the day appointed for his consecration, and 
ail the circumstances and solemn exercises 
j arranged, and finally at the supreme moment 
I the consecrating Bishop, before the assembled 
thousands, challenges any one there : " Say whether 
there is anything known in relation to this person 
who, under God, is to assume the most solemn and 
sacred responsibilities that ever pressed upon a 
himaan soul — whether there is any reason why he 
should not be clothed with these solemn functions. " 
Can that be veiled ? Is not that an open scrutiny 'i 
Whatever the objection might be, though it were 
the grossest and gravest that could be conceived of, 
must be brought out there, or the consciences of 
those who know that objection must be defiled with 
so deep a defilement that it would be doubtful wheth- 
er any earthly repentance and tears could wash it 
I out. 

It seems to me that the circumstances of the age 
in which we live should convince us that it is impos- 
sible if we would, that it is undesirable if we could, 
j to try to gather around ourselves a veil of dark- 
I ness, of secrecy, in any matter that is clearly to 
j affect the interests of the Church. We cannot do it 
I if we would. We ought not to do it if we could. 
I There are evils, I grant you there may be great 
I evils, connected with the present method ; but they 
are evils more easily borne than the other evils into 
I which we should rush if we undertook to establish a 
i new rule in this latter part of the nineteenth cen- 
! tury that was scarcely tolerable in the beginning of 
j the same. 

I Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The argument 
of the gentleman is founded on a fabrication. There 



53 



is nothing in the service of Consecration of a Bishop 
calling on individuals. [" Question," " Question,"] 
The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend- 
ment proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Stevenson) to the 17th Eule, so as to make the 
iiile read : 

"Whenever the election or confirmation of a 
bishop is under consideration, the House sliall sit 
with closed doors." 

The amendment was agreed to, there being on a 
division— ayes, 131 ; noes, 90. 

The rule as amended was adopted, 

Mr. y\^HITTLE, of Georgia. I suggest that the 
session be continued imtil we get through the rules. 
It will take but a very few minutes after four 
o'clock. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Why can- 
not we have all the remaining rules acted "on at 
once ? There is no question about the others. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move the adoption of the 
remaining rules. 

The PRESiDENT. It is moved that the remain- 
ing rules be adopted without reading. They are 
simply the old rules, and it is a mere matter of 
form. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the remaining 
iniles were adopted, as follows : 

"^'18. All questions of order shall be decided by 
the Chair, without debate; but any member may 
appeal from such decision ; and on such appeal, no 
member shall speak more than once, without express 
leave of the House. 

"19. The names of the moA^ers of resolutions shall 
appear upon the minutes of this House. 

20. Every member who shall be in the House when 
any question is put shall, on a division, be counted, 
unless he be personally interested in tlie discussion. 

" 21. While the President is putting any question, 
the members shall continue in their seats, and shall 
not hold any private discourse. 

"22. When any member is about to speak, or de- 
liver any matter to the House, he shall, with due re- 
spect, address himself to the President, confining 
himself strictly to the point in debate. 

"23. No member shall speak more than twice in 
the same debate without leave of the House. 

"24. All committees shall be appointed by the 
President, unless otherwise ordered. 

"25. When the House is about to rise, every 
member shall keep his seat until the President 
leaves his chair, and before the President leaves the 
chair he may make any communication to the 
House, or cause any notice to be read by the Secre- 
tary. 

"26. No member shall absent himself from the 
service of the House, unless he have leave or be un- 
able to attend. " 

The PRESIDENT. The question is now on the 
adoption of all the rules as a whole. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I offer the fol- 
lowing additional rule : 

"When memorials or petitions are presented, 
their contents shall be concisely stated by the Dep- 
uty presenting them, and they shall be referred or 
laid on the table, unless by majority vote the me- 
morial or petition shall be ordered to be read. " 

I shall not say anj^hing because the necessity of 
this rule is so apparent. Any man who offers a pe- 
tition or memorial can briefly state its contents, 
and then if the House desires it to be read it can be 
done so by a majority vote. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop- 
tion of the proposed additional rule. 

The rule was adopted. 

Mr. FISH, of New York. I offer as an additional 
rule the following : 

"No amendment to these rules shall be made im- 
less one day's notice shall have been given of the 



motion to amend ; and no rale shall be suspended 
miless by unanimous consent of the members 
present." 

It is for tlie protection and conservation of the 
rules that I offer this. 

Mr. JENKINS, of Georgia. Is that proposition 
I susceptible of a division i 
\ The PRESIDENT. It is. 

Mr. JENKINS, of Georgia. I ask for a division, 
i Mr. PISH, of New York. It is suggested that I 
should say "two-thirds," instead of "unanimous 
i consent." I would rather sav " four-fifths." 
j Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I propose in- 
; stead of "unanimous consent "to say, "unless by 
I the consent of two-thirds. " 

Mr. JENKINS, of Georgia. With that modifica- 
I tion I withdraw the call for a division, 
! Mr. FISH, of New York. I accept the modifica- 
1 tion. 

I The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop- 
j tion of the proposed additional rule. 
I The rule was adopted. 

i Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I move the 
! adoption of the whole rules. 

I Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I have another rule to 
offer. I presume it will meet with no opposition. 
"In the decision of all parliamentary questions 
1 not embraced in these niles of order, Cushing's 
! Manual shall be authority." 

I The PRESIDENT. I suggest to the Deputy to 
i withdraw that. It will give rise to debate, 
j Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. If it is going to be de- 
! bated, I withdraw it. 

I Rev. Dr. FULTON of Alabam.a. I wish to move 
I an additional rale. It is not necessary at all to de- 
j bate the matter, I imagine, since tlie subject has 
; been alreadj^ before the House in connection with 
I other topics, I move the following : 
I " That the Secretary shall cause stenographic re- 
ports to be taken of all discussions in secret ses- 
sion," 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I move that 

that be laid on the table for the present. Tt is very 

impoi-tant that we should adopt the i ules now, and 

that can come up to-mori-ov/. 
Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I doubt 
j whether to-morrow I shall be in order in offering 
I this additional rale. I shall be then required 

to postpone it to another day and then renew 
' a subject which is now quite fresh in the minds of 
I members. I do not desii-e any discussion at all. I 
I do not propose to say a word. Everybody has 
j heard the reasons for holding sessions in secret. 
1 Everybody has also heard the reasons why no man 

should be allowed to speak here upon the character 
! of individuals without a record being made of the 

precise words used. Therefore I must press the 

question. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I move to 
lay the proposed rule on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. It cannot be laid on the table 
without carrying along with it the whole i-ules. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I withdraw 
my motion. 

I Rev. Mr. BIRDSALL, of California. Our voting 
\ this down does not prevent our employing a re- 
I porter at any time for any particular discussion in 
SGcrct SGSsion 
The PRESIIDENT. It does not. The question is 
: on the proposed rule moved by the deputy from Al- 
abama. 

The rule was rejected — ayes 58, noes not counted. 
' Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I should 
like to have the name of the Committee " on Amend- 
j ments to the Constitution " changed to " Commit- 
j tee on the Constitution. " 

. Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. It now corresponds with 
' the same committee in the House of Bishops. We 



54 



ought to follow that. There is no necessity for such 
a committee, unless there are amendments to the 
Constitution to be proposed. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Is that in 
order ? We have passed over that mattei-. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not think it is in order to 
go back. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. We 
have a Committee on Canons. Let us have one on 
the Constitution. 

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. This is only to pre- 
serve the symmetry of our committees. We have 
a Committee on Canons, not on amendments to 
Canons, 

Rev. Mr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. We 
can make a canon, but we cannot make a constitu- 
tion. The proper title is " Committee on Amend- 
ments of the Constitution," not "on the Constitu- 
tion." 

The PRESIDENT. It is evident the amendment 
is not favored by the House, and therefore I will 
put the motion made by Dr. Beach on the adoption 
of the rules as amended. The question is on that 
motion. 

The motion was agreed to. 

STANDING COMMITTEES. 

The PRESIDENT. I will now give notice of the 
appointment of additional committees. There is 
one indeed under the old rule which has not yet 
been announced — the Committee on Christian Edu- 
cation. I appoint on that committee 

Rev. HENRY A. COIT, of New Hampshire. 

Rev. CHARLES MINNIGERODE, of Virginia. 

Rev. DANIEL R. GOODWIN, of Pennsylvania. 

Rev. ALDERT SMEDES, of North Carolina. 

Rev. GEORGE BECKETT, of Georgia. 

Rev. EDYf IN E. JOHNSON, of Connecticut. 

Rev. GILES A. EASTON, of California. 

Mr. NATHANIEL H. R. DAWSON, of Alabama. 

Mr. HENRY COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. 

Mr. JOHN B. HOWE, of Indiana. 

Mr. CHARLES J. JENKINS, of Georgia. 

Mr. GEORGE C. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. 

Mr. ISAAC ATWATER, of Minnesota. 

As the Committee on Amendments t© the Consti- 
tution, I appoint : 

Rev. CHARLES H. HALL, of Long Island. 
Rev. THOMAS U. DUDLEY, of Marvland. 
Rev. BENJAMIN A. ROGERS, of Texas. 

For a reason which will be apparent to the House, 
I have appointed but three clergymen on that com- 
mittee, and the following make up the rest of the 
committee : 

Mr. MORRISON R. WAITE, of Ohio. 
Mr. R. C. L. MONCURE. of Virginia. 
Mr. JAI^IES M. WOOLW^ORTH, of Nebraska. 
Mr. GEORGE P. COMSTOCK, of Central New 
York. 

Mr. ELI T. WILDER, of Minnesota. 
Mr. JOHN W. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. 
Mr. EDWARD McCRADY, of South Carolina. 
Mr. SAMUEL B. RUGGLES, of New York. 
Mr. CORTLANDT PARKER, of New Jersey. 
Mr. GEORGE W. RACE, of Louisiana. 

It is important, as I have long thought, that the 
wealth of intellectual power which this Church has 
the privilege to possess in her laitj^, as represented 
in this Convention and in all her Conventions, 
should be utilized, and we put that duty upon those 
distinguished men. 

As the Committee on Memorials of Deceased Mem- 
bers, I have appointed : 

Rev. ALEXANDER BURGESS, of Massachusetts. 
Rev. SAMUEL CHASE, of Illinois. 



Rev. WILLIAM F. ADAMS, of Louisiana. 
; Rev. WALTER AYRAULT, of Central New York. 
Rev. THEODORE P. BARBER, of Easton. 
Rev. MAECELLUS A. HERRICK, of New Hamp- 
shire. 

Rev. RICHARD M. ABERCROMBIE, of New 
Jersey. 

; Mr. HARRY I. BODLEY, of Missouri. 

Mr. ARMAND J. DE ROSSET, of North Carolina. 
: Mr. CAMBRIDGE LIVINGSTON, of New York. 
' Mr. AUGUSTUS H. MOSS, of Ohio. 

Mr. WILLIAM WELSH, of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. JEREMIAH C. GARTHWAITE, of New 
Jersey. 

COMMITTEE ON CANONS. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut, submitted the 
following reports : 

Report No. 1. 

The Committee on Canons respectfully report 
that on the morning of the third day of the session 
they met for organization, the Rev. William Cooper 
: Mead, d.d., being Chairman, and appointed the Rev. 
Francis Harrison to be their secretary. 

Bv order of the Committee. 
(Signed) WILLIAM COOPER MEAD, 

Chairman. 

I October 9, 1874. 

Report No. 2. 

The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
a proposed addition to the Standing Order of the 
House, respectfully report that they have considered 
the same, and recommend the adoption of the fol- 
lowing : 

"Sections. The Secretary of the House of Deputies 
and the Treasurer of the Convention, although not 
returned as Deputies to the Convention, shall be 
entitled to seats upon the floor of the House, and, 
with the approval of the President, to speak on the 
: subjects of their respective offices. 
! " Section 4. This order shall always be printed at 
I the close of the Digest, as well as prefixed to the 
' Journal, with the date of its adoption." 
By order of the Committee. 

(Signed) WM. COOPER MEAD, 
October 9, 1874. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I move the 
adoption of the resolution contained in Report 
No. 2. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. It has to go 
on the Calendar and come up to-morrow. 
. The PRESIDENT. The rule is that the Secretary 
I shall keep a Calendar of business, on which reports 
of committees, resolutions which lie over, and other 
I matters undisposed of shall be placed in the order 
in which they are presented, so that this matter 
may be disposed of now, and the motion is made to 
adopt this resolution of the Committee on Canons. 
The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The hour of adjournment 
having arrived, the House stands adjourned until 
to-morrow at the usual hour. 



FOURTH DAY. 

Saturday, October 10. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel 
at 10 A. M. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psalter 
by Rev. Giles A. Easton, of California. The Les- 
sons were read by Rev. Edwin M. Van Deusen, d.d., 
of Central New York, The Creed and Prayers 
were said by Rev. William Paret, d.d., of Central 
Pennsylvania. The Benediction was pronounced 



55 



by the Right Heverend William Mercer Green, d.d., 
Bishop of Mississippi, 

The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read 
and approved. 

BISHOPS OF ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN. 

Rev. Dr. COOKE, of New York. The Commit- 
tee on the Consecration of Bishops have a report to 
make. Before maldng the i-eport I beg to call your 
attention, Mr. President, to the seventeenth rule of 
order, as adopted yesterday, and to enquire whether 
the riile will be considered by the President as ap- 
plying to the report which is now to be made : 

"Whenever the election or confirmation of a 
Bishop is under consideration, the House shall sit 
with closed doors." 

The PRESIDENT. I should not think speaking 
promptly on the question, that such a question was 
imder consideration when the report was merely 
being made. It will come under consideration when 
the renort is before us. 

Rev! Dr. COOKE, of New York. I submit the 
foUowdng report : 

The Committee on the Consecration of Bishops 
have had before them the testimonials referred to 
them of the Rev. Edward R. Welles, d.d.. Bishop- 
elect of the Diocese of Wisconsin, and find after 
examination that all the rules and Canons of this 
Church touching the election of a Bishop have been 
complied with in the case under consideration. The 
Committee therefore saibmit for the consideration 
and action of the House the customary resolutions : 

"Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies approve of the testimonials of the Rev. 
Edward R. Welles, d.d.. Bishop-elect of the Diocese 
of Wisconsin, and give their consent to his conse- 
cration. 

"Resolved, That the House proceed to sign the 
proper certificate to be presented to the House of 
Bishops." 

I also, from the same Committee, submit the fol- 
lowing report : 

" The Committee on the Consecration of Bishops 
have had before them the testimonials referred to 
them of the Rev. George E. Seymour, d.d., Bishop- 
elect of the Diocese of Illinois, and find, after ex- 
amination, that all the rules and Canons of this 
Church touching the election of a Bishop have been 
complied with in the case under consideration. The 
Committee therefore submit for the consideration 
and action of the House the customary resolutions : 

"Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies approve of the testimonials of the Rev. 
George F. Seymour, D.D., Bishop-elect of the Di- 
ocese of miinois, and give their consent to his con- 
secration. 

"Resolved, That the House proceed to sign the 
proper certificate to be presented to the House of 
Bishops." 

Mr. CHURCHILL, of Kentucky. Mr. Presi- 
dent — 

The PRESIDENT. The Chairman of the Com- 
mittee will please indicate what disposition he 
wishes to make of the reports just made — whether 
they shall lie over or not. 

The Rev. Dr. COOKE, of New York. The Com- 
mittee present the reports and resolutions for the 
action of the House. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsbui'gh. A report when 
made, under the rules adopted yesterday, goes down 
on the Calendar, and will come up in its order as a 
matter of course. I call attention to Rule 6: " The 
Secretary shall keep a Calendar of business, on which 
reports from committees, resolutions which Ue over, 



and other matters undisposed of shall be placed in 
the order in which they are pi esented." 

The PRESIDENT. That settles the matter. It 
designates the disposition which shall be made of 
each report. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
rise to make a simple suggestion as a matter of con- 
venience. I suppose this business goes on the Calen- 
dar, and will come up, being tii^st in the order of bus- 
iness, on Monday. I suggest that either at that time 
or now we make it a sjjecial order of business at the 
opening of the Convention. We can do so when it 
icomes up on the Calendar or now. I would make it 
the special order of business at the opening of the 
Convention, immediately after Divine service. That 
will obvio.te the necessity of compelling persons to 
remove from the House, and it will then only be 
necessary for the ushers to close the tlouse and not 
admit persons from the outside until we get through 
that order of business. This would be much more 
agTeeable, I think, to the Convention and to persons 
\ without. 

I make the suggestion, not for the purpose of in- 
terfering wdth these reports on the Calendar, but for 
the purpose of giving notice that, when they come 
up on Monday as the first business in order on the 
Calendar, I shall move that they be made the special 
i order on the opening of the Convention on the fol- 

■ lowing day, immediately after Divine service. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Does the gentle- 
man not know that there are already some matters 
on the Calendar in advance of this i 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
was not aware of it. 
i Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. There are. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
But as it is always allowable to make a special 
order, I will move, at the suggestion of gentlemen 
around me, that this be made the special order on 
the opening of the Convention immediately after 

■ Divine service on Tuesday next. I will not include 
j in my motion the direction to the ushers not to ad- 
1 mit any person into the House, but of course that 

direction will be given by the proper officer, 
' The PRESIDENT. It will require a two- thirds 
vote to pass that resolution. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
To make a special order i 

The PRESIDENT. In the form presented, be- 
cause it repeals a rule of order already made. 
; Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Let us see, sir. We go to the Calendar at twelve 
o'clock, unless there be an order of the day. I 
think the seventh rule contemplates the universal 
practice of all bodies to make an order of the day, 
and that this rule is in subordination to that gen- 
eral principle. 
The PRESIDENT. My decision has no reference 
1 to the Calendar, but it is because the rules distinctly 
i specify the order of business. Of course, the House 
' can suspend the rule of order for this purpose, but 

it will require a two-thirds vote to do so. 
! Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Do I understand 
the Chair to decide that the House cannot, except 
by a vote of two-thirds, fix any matter as a special 
order for any particular time ? 
The PRESIDENT. At any particular time which 
; violates the order of business as prescribed by the 
i rules. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. But the 7th Rule 
I prescribes that the Calendar shall be taken up at 13 
i o'clock. 

I Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
understand the rule to be (and I think those wise in 
parliamentary law will sustain me) that the matter 
of making anything a special order is part of the 
control of its proceedings which exists in every de- 
liberative body by a mere majority at all times. It 



56 



does not conflict with anything, but simply post- 
pones to a particular time the matter in hand, and 
fixes when it shall be taken up. However, if the 
Chair is of the opinion he has indicated, I will not 
insist on this motion, but will pursue the course 
which I stated before, and when these reports are 
called up in their place on the Calendar, on Mon- 
day, I will move to make them the order of business 
for Tuesday morning. 

ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED BY CHICAGO FIRE. 

Rev. Dr. LOCKE, of Illinois, submitted the fol- 
lowing report : 

"The Rev. Dr. Locke, who was appointed by the 
last General Convention, with the Bishop and Clergy 
of Chicago, a committee to receive and distribute 
the alms of the Church contributed for the relief of 
the Church organizations disabled by the Cliicago 
fire, feels that it devolves upon him, the Bishop be- 
ing dead, to report the amount and the use of those 
alms. 

"He submits, then, the following report, omitting 
all the several items and stating the gross amounts. 
The items are not necessary, for every one has been 
separately acknowledged to the donor at the time 
of receipt: 

CHURCH RELIEF FUND. 

Dr. 

Receipts by Dr. Locke, .... $23,793 05 
Receipts by Bishop Whitehovise, . . 20,10169 
Interest on same, . . . . . 723 16 
Receipts by Dr. Locke for Church 

Hospital, 2,435 65 

Receipts by Dr. Locke for personal dis- 
tribution, 4,660 76 

$50,714 31 

Cr. 

Clergy— Personal Relief, . . ' . . $3,500 87 
Charity Fund, .... 5,937 81 
Churches— Trinity Church, . . . 5,000 00 
" St. James' " ... 4,345 85 
" Holy Communion, . . 1,500 00 
St. Luke's Hospital, . . . . 1,100 00 
St. Ansgarius, Swedish, for lots, . . 8,950 00 
" " for Church Build- 
ing, . . . 10,942 54 
Paid by Dr. Locke to St. Luke's Hospital, 2,435 65 
Distributed by him, .... 4,660 76 
Mayor, Chicago, special, . . . 128 41 
Charges, Freight, etc., .... 22 96 
Balance in hand for ' 'Ascension Church, " 2, 189 44 

$50,714 31 

" Besides all this, large sums were sent to individ- 
ual clergy, which are not hei-e reported, because they 
never came before the Committee, and there were 
also immense supplies of clothing and stoi'es sent to 
each parish, all of which was acknowledged and 
faithfully distributed. 

" The undersigned, on behalf of all the Churches, 
so severely injured by the fire, and especially on be- 
half of the Church Hospital, of which he is the 
President, begs leave gratefully to acknowledge the 
abundant generosity of the General Church. 

"CLINTON LOCKE, 
"Treasurer appointed by General Convention 
of 1871, of Chicago Relief Fund." 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that 
this report be printed on the Journal and the Com- 
mittee discharged. 

The motion was agreed to. 

THE NICENE CREED. 



The PRESIDENT, 
now in order. 



Petitions and memorials are 



Rev. Mr. DOUGLAS, of Mississippi. I present d 
memorial of the Diocese of Mississippi in regard to 
the Nicene Creed. As this memorial has already 
been read in substance, I move its reference to the 
Committee on the Prayer-Book. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. Payne, of Albany ; Rev. Mr. Schuyler, 
of Missouri ; Rev. Mr. Rogers, of Texas ; Rev. Mr. 
Trimble, of Arkansas ; Rev. Dr. Scarborough, of 
Pittsburgh ; Rev. Dr. Stringfellow, of Alabama ; 
and Rev. Mr. Bliss, of Vermont, presented me- 
morials on the same subject from their respective 
Dioceses, which were referred to the Committee on 
the Prayer-Book. 

COURT OF APPEAL. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I have a memorial 
of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, asking this General 
Convention to take such steps as will result in the 
establishment of a Court of Appeal, and I ask that 
it be referred to the Committee on Canons. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I have a memorial of 
the same nature from the Diocese of Texas. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of Nev/ York. Jn behalf of the 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, I 
submit that the measure suggested will require an 
amendment of the Constitution, and the question 
should properly go to that Committee, and not to 
the Committee on Canons. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. The 
Committee on Canons at the last Convention, if I 
remember aright, reported on the subject, and re- 
ported that it involved an amendment to the Con- 
stitution. I think, therefore, the appropriate refer- 
ence is to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. We are certain- 
ly not bound by the action of the last Committee on 
Canons. The House did not approve of the report, 
and, of course, it now remains an open ques- 
tion. This memorial which I have presented 
does not in form ask for change of the Con- 
stitution. Therefore it ought not properly to be 
referred to the Committee on changes in the Con- 
stitution. If the Committee on Canons should 
come to the conclusion that it does require a change 
in the Constitution, then the proper action can be 
had : they will so report to the House and have it 
sent to the Committee on Amendments to the Con- 
stitution ; but until they have so reported, there 
being nothing in the memorial which looks to a 
change in the Constitution, it seems to me that the 
proper committee to receive it, in the first place, is 
the Committee on Canons. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I wish 
to ask a question. Did not the Committee on 
Canons report, at the last Convention, that it re- 
quired an amendment to the Constitution ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. There was a re- 
port to that effect, but that report was withdrawTi 
and another report subsequently presented, which 
never was acted upon, on account of the late period 
of the session at which the report was made. 
There was a division of opinion in that Committee, 
as to whether a change in the Constitution was 
necessary or not ; but even if that Committee had 
been unanimous that it did require a change in the 
Constitution, the action of that Committee would 
not foreclose the case and prevent its going before 
the present Committee, who may think differently, 
and by an equally imanimous vote decide that a 
Canon is sufficient for the purpose. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I am 
not willing to undertake the labor of preparing a 
system for a Court of Appeals, and therefore I 
withdraw my motion. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. The motion I 
made does not rest at all upon the action of the last 



5? 



Committee on Canons ; it i-ests on the intrinsic na- 
ture of the thing- itself. How is it possible to establish 
a Court of Appeals in this Church without a funda- 
mental, radical, and vital change in the Constitution ? 
It is the most important tribunal that could possibly 
be made. We have established a committee for the 
very purpose of considering amendments to the 
Constitution in all their length and breadth— in all 
theii" gravity ; and I do insist for that Committee 
that they are entitled to examine the subject. It 
ought to go to that Committee, and none other, to 
take primary action ; therefore I renew my motion 
that the memorial be referred to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution. 

Mr. BUHGWIN, of Pittsburgh. As long as I am 
sustained in the opinion which I do entertain by 
the Hon. Murray Hoffman, that a change in the 
Constitution is not necessary to establish a Court of 
Appeals, I insist upon my motion that this memo- 
rial go before the Committee on Canons. He has a 
long discussion of the matter, as v^dll be found by 
any gentleman reading his book on the Church, 
and comes to the final conclusion that a change in 
the Constitution is not necessary. Members of the pre- 
sent House probably who were members of the House 
of 1850 and 1853 will remember tha,t the Committee 
on Canons, composed in part of Dr. Hawks, Judge 
Hoifman, Judge Chambers, and Hugh Davy Evans, 
of Maryland, reported a Canon providing for the 
establishment of a Court of Appeal. The constitu- 
tional question was then scarcely raised. The 
Canon failed, not because of any constitutional ob- 
jection, but because of another matter which it is 
not now necessary to allude to. But those gentle- 
men, whose authority I presume will be acknowl- 
edged by every member of this House, were of the 
oi)inion that this tribunal could be provided 
without changing the Constitution. I think 
at all events, prima facie, it goes to the 
Committee on Canons, because the memorial 
itself does not ask for a change in the Consti- 
tution, and we have no right to presume that it does 
require a change of the Constitution until the Com- 
mittee to whom v.^e refer it, and who prima facie 
are the proper recipients of it, shall so report to the 
House. K the memorial itself asked for a change 
of the Constitution, then as a matter of course it 
should go to the Committee on Amendments of 
the Constitution ; but inasmuch as it does not, 
the proper committee is the Committee on Can- 
ons. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I wish to state a 
liistorical fact which I happen to know as to the au- 
thority of Judge Hoffman. It is true that the ef- 
fort was first made before the Committee on Canons 
as far back as 1850, but it was found not practicable 
to carry it through, and thereupon a constitational 
amendment was proposed for a Court of Appeal by 
Judge Hoffman himself, and that was passed with 
hardly an objection in the General Convention of 
1856. I had the honor to take a seat for the first time 
in the Convention at Richmond in 1859, when the 
measure was brought up for its second reading as a 
constitutional amendment. I felt it my duty on 
that occasion (in which I was strongly seconded by 
my reverend friend from Virginia, Dr. Andrews, 
who knows the fact) to rise at once, and oppose that 
amendment as destructive of all the usages of the 
Church. It was argued at great length at Rich- 
mond, and the Court of Appeals was voted 
down by a vote by orders of 29 to 3. 
That is a historical fact. It has alv/ays 
been deemed a subject of constitutional provision. 
If in the face and eyes of all that, this body is now 
ready to really displace the Committee on Amend- 
ments to the Constitution who ought to examine 
this matter, and send it to the Committee on Canons 
upon the mere ipse dixit of Judge Hoffman, which 



j he himself retracted, they will establish a danger 

' ous precedent. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I rise to a question 
of order. This debate is going to be prolonged con- 
siderably from present appearances, and I revoke 
the twelfth rule of oi-der : " There shall be no de- 
bate upon a resolution which proposes to refer any 
matter to a committee, or upon a motion to recom- 
mit any subject which has been before a com- 
mittee." 

' The PRESIDENT. I was about to bring that rule 

of order to the attention of the House. 
Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. It is a new rule. We 

are not yet familiar with it. I call attention to it 
i now, that we may stop this debate, 
i The PRESIDENT. I do not know that we can 
j do it under that rule. I was about to mention 

it myself as an illustration of the impossibility of 

using human language so as to control human action 
\ in the diversity of human affairs. It says, "There 
\ shall be no debate upon a resolution which proposes 
! to refer any matter to a committee ; " but here 
i comes up the question whether this memorial shall 

be referred to one committee or another, and there- 
■ fore the letter of the rule hardly applies. 
\ Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I wish to state 
i to my fi'iend from Pittsbui-gh the fact that hereto- 
I fore we have had no Committee on Amendments to 
! the Constitution, and that this very morning a me- 
I morial came before the Committee on Canons, on 

which I hold now in my hand the action of that 

Committee, for the purpose of presenting it at the 
! proper time to the House, to be referred to this 
; very Committee- on Amendments to the Con- 
i stitution, because the Committee on Canons, 

as we deem, has nothing to do with it. 
j Therefore, I respectfully suggest that he consent to 

the reference at once of this matter to the C Dmmit- 
I tee on Constitutional Amendments. It would be 
! sent from the Committee on Canons in the end, 

undoubtedly to the Committee on Amendments of 

the Constitution, and I want to simplify the busi- 
I ness. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
i rise to a question of order. A point of order was 
I made, and the Chair ruled that this matter could 
not be debated, but must go to a committee with- 
: out debate. I raise the point of order that the 
I case comes not within that rule. When that 
; rule was under discussion, I went to a very distin- 
! guished gentleman learned and familiar with parlia- 
mentary law, and told him that this very doubt 
would arise on the first thing that cam^e before the 
: Convention. I think a resolution to refer is not a 
: motion to refer a matter before the House. A reso- 
lution to refer a matter relates to a resolution which 
for the first time brings a subject before the House. 
It does not refer to a motion to commit a matter 
which comes before the House in the ordinary way. 

I want the ruling settled now as to that ques- 
tion of order, for it lies at the foundation of our 
whole proceedings. Let me explain. If a mattei- 
is introduced here that has not been before a com- 
mittee, and discussion takes place upon it, a motion 
to commit it to a committee is debatable under om- 
mles. If, however, a gentleman comes upon the 
floor and offers a resolution declaring that such and 
such a subject be referred to a committee to report 
on it to this House, that cannot be debated. That 
is the difference. If it be a matter introduced and 
entertained by this House, the mere motion to com- 
mit it is debatable, because the very next clause in that 
same rule says that a motion to recommit shall not 
be debatable, and by strong implication a motion to 
commit for the first time a matter that has never 
been before a committee, and is introduced original- 
ly in the form of a motion to refer, is debatable. I 
want that settled. 



88 



Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I maintain that the 

fentleman makes a distinction without a difference, 
he twelfth rule of order says : 
"There shall be no debate upon a resolution 
which proposes to refer " — What ? To refer that 
resolution, as the gentleman's argument indicates ? 
No ; but— "any subject." 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
rise to a point of order. The rule says that the 
Chair shall decide all questions of ordei- without de- 
bate. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair listened very at- 
tentively to one gentleman making his point of 
order. In order that the mind of the Chair might 
be informed, he was willing to listen to an argu- 
ment on the other side. I believe that is legitimate. 
When the Chair decides a question, of course he 
can do it without allowing anybody to debate. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
ask for the decision of the point of order. 

The PRESIDENT. I can easily decide it. I do 
not require any argument on the opposite side on ' 
the point of order made by Mr. Montgomery. I de- 
cide that there can be no debate on a resolution 
which proposes to refer any matter to a committee. 
But tlie question before us is, as I stated, a variation 
of the rule. It is as to which committee this memo- 
rial shall be referred. Whether the variation is i 
sufficient to justify debate I do not know, and I will \ 
ask the opinion of this House upon that point before : 
we proceed further. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. Is it competent 
to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair, 
made just now, as to whether debate is in order ? 

The PRESIDENT. No, because that is an abstract 
question, which is not before us. The question be- ; 
fore us is whether there is a sufficient variation 
from the rule in the contest which has sprung up, to 
justify debate as to the committee to which this 
memorial should be referred. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I understand ; 
that ; but the Chair just now decided that a motion 
to commit is not debatable under any circum- ' 
stances ; and if that is to apply to the House during ' 
the present session, I wish to take an appeal from ■ 
that decision. This is the only time we can take an : 
appeal, I suppose, from that decision of the Chair. I 

The PRESIDENT. That question is not now be- | 
fore us. i 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. The Chair de- | 
cided the question, and I take an appeal from his I 
decision. ' 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Mr. President, if ! 
it is desirable to have this question decided now, I ' 
have no objection to having it decided ; but I was ! 
about to modify the motion as first made, so as pos- \ 
sibly to relieve the House from further discussion. I 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I rise to a point of ; 
order. The gentleman has made a motion to com- I 
mit to the Committee on Canons. That is not de- ; 
batable ; but there comes in an amendment, a dif- | 
f erent proposition as a substitute, to commit to an- i 
other committee. Now, that stands before the ' 
House as the subject for decision, and is not debata- 
ble either. 

Rev. Dr. PARRINGTON, of New Jersey. It is \ 
twelve o'clock, and I call for the order of the day. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The question 
should be put on the amendment first without de- 
bate, and then on the original proposition, if i 
the amendment is voted down, without debate, i 
["Right."] i 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. The eighteenth 
rule says : 1 

"All questions of order shall be decided by the ' 
Chair without debate ; but any member may ap- 
peal from such decision; and on such appeal no 
member shall speak more than once without express i 



leave of the House." The Chair made a decision. 
I appeal from that decision. 

The PRESIDENT. An appeal is made from the 
decision of the Chair. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Let me suggest a 
point of oi'der. The decision of the Chair is now 
not pertinent. We stand on the original motion as 
amended, and the Chair may make his decision upon 
that, and the subject is withdrawn from the House 
on which the gentleman wishes to appeal. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. The Chair has 
decided already. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I hold that the 
duty of the Chair, under the rule, is to take the 
original motion, if there be no amendment, and put 
the question to the House, and if the House vote 
" aye," to send it to that committee ; and there is 
an end of it. If an amendment is moved, the Chair 
should put the question on the amendment without 
debate. 

The PRESIDENT. I believe that is right. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. If there be an 
appeal from the decision of the Chair, that is an- 
other question. 

The PRESIDENT. I believe that is right, and 
therefore the appeal now lies. I have decided that 
a motion to refer must be without debate, except 
the five minutes allowed to the proposer of it. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I propose to 
modify my motion. 

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from 
Easton withdraw his appeal to admit the modifica- 
tion ^ 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. Can I renew the 
appeal 

The PRESIDENT. Of course. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. In deference to 
the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee on 
Canons, I modify my motion so as to move that 
the memorial be referred to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution, to report to this 
House whether it requires a change in the Constitu- 
tion to establish a Court of Appeals. If they shall 
so report, then, of course, we shall have the matter 
before us to decide. If they report to the contrary, 
then this memorial will go before the Committee on 
Canons, if the House so decide, to prepare and re- 
port to the House a plan for a Court of Appeal. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion now is to refer to 
the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Simply to re- 
port upon this one point, as to whether a change in 
the Constitution is required to establish a Court of 
Appeal. 

The PRESIDENT. Is the resolution in writing 
to that effect ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I have not writ- 
ten it, but it can be reduced to writing in a mo- 
ment. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. That 
suggestion, I think, ought to be satisfactory to 
every member of the House. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. There is no 
question about that, but my appeal was on another 
point. 

Rev. Dr. PETTIS, of Kentucky. I rise to a ques- 
tion of order, that it is past 12 o'clock, and we must 
proceed to the oi-der of the day. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I ask that the reso- 
lution relating to a change of the Constitution be 
referred to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution. I make that motion. 

The PRESIDENT. The rule must first be sus- 
pended so as to refer the matter of the Texas me- 
morial to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The Committee 
on Canons are prepared to report back the memorial 



59 



from Texas for the piu'pose of referring it to the 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. 

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Burgwin's resolution is 
first in order, and it will now be read. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

''Resolved, That the memorial from the Diocese 
of Pittsbm-gh be referred to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution, to report whether 
a change in the Constitution be necessary in order 
to the establishment of a Court of Appeal. " 

The resolution was agreed to. 

AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V. OF CONSTITUTION. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut, from the Com- 
mittee on Canons, submitted the following report : 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom were re- 
ferred certain memorials from the Dioceses of Cali- 
fornia and Texas, respectfully report that before dis- 
charging fully the duty devolved upon them it will 
be necessary to have acted upon a preliminary ques- 
tion referred to in the following resolution, which 
they respectfully submit for the consideration of the 
House. 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Amendments 
to the Constitution be requested to enquire and re- 
port whether the suggested amendment to the Con- 
stitution, found on page 201 of the Journal of this 
House of 1871, and in Message 67, page 360 of the 
Journal of the House of Bishops, has been proposed 
to the Dioceses, according to the Constitution, and 
whether, if so proposed, due notice of such amend- 
ment has been given to the Diocesan Conventions, 
in pursuance of Article IX. of the Constitution, and 
of Section 3 of Canon 1, Title III., of the Digest." 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I move the refer- 
ence of that to the Committee on Constitutional 
Amendments. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the resolu- 
tion be referred to the Committee on Amendments 
to the Constitution. 

The motion was agreed to. 

NEW DIOCESE IN WISCONSIN. 

The Rev. Mr. HAFF, of Wisconsin, presented a 
memorial of the Diocese of Wisconsin, and accom- 
panying papers in reference to the erection of a 
new Diocese therein, which were referred to the 
Committee on the Admission of New Dioceses. 

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONVENTION. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Mr. 
President, at the late Convention of the Diocese of 
Massachusetts, held in May of this year, the follow- 
ing resolution was passed : 

" Resolved, By the Convention of the Diocese of 
Massachusetts, that the Deputies to the General Con- 
vention be instructed to request the General Con- 
vention to consider whether any modification of 
Canon 4, Title II., of the General Canons, be neces- 
sary or desirable." 

On behalf of the Deputies of the Diocese of Mas- 
sachusetts I present this resolution to the General 
Convention. The Canon is the Canon "of differ- 
ences between ministers and their congregations, 
and of the dissolution of a pastoral connection. " As 
we understand it, the design of the resolution was 
to request the Convention to consider if, by the pro- 
vision of the Canon, the rights of rectors and assis- 
tant ministers are secured and sufficiently guarded. 
I move that the resolution of the Convention of the 
Diocese of Massachusetts be referred to the Com- 
mittee on Canons, with instructions to consider and 
report accordingly. 

The motion was agreed to. 

LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD. 

The following message (No. 5) was received from 
the House of Bishops : 



"The House of Bishops informs the House of 
Deputies that it concurs in Message No. 2 of the 
House of Deputies relating to a Committee to wait 
upon the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, and that it has 
1 appointed as the Committee on the part of this 
House the Bishops of Michigan and Maryland." 

NEW DIOCESE IN NEW JERSEY. 

The following message (No. 6) was received from 
' the House of Bishops : 

i The House of Bishops informs the House of Depu- 
' ties that it has adopted the following resolution : 
i ' ' Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
' concui-ring), That this Convention hereby consents 
to and ratifies the formation of a new Diocese with- 
, in the limits of the Diocese of New Jersey, to be 
composed of the seven northern counties of the 
: State, viz., the counties of Sussex, Warren, Morris, 
; Passaic, Bergen, Hudson, and Essex, together with 
i the township of Summit in Union County. " 

Mr, OTIS, of Illinois. I move the concurrence 
; of this House in the last message. 
I Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I ask if we 
' have not the subject before a committee of our own 
House, and would it not be more respectful to our 
, own committee to wait until they report, and if 
they report for concurrence then to concur ? 
Mr. OTIS, of niinois. They have reported. 
Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Very weU. 
Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I hope 
the message just sent down will be concurred in. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to concur in the message relating to the Diocese of 
New Jersey. 
The motion was agreed to. 

BOARD OF MISSIONS 

Mr. McWHORTER, of Central New York, sub- 
mitted the following resolution, which was agreed 
i to : 

i "Resolved, That this House proceed to ballot, at 
12 o'clock meridian on the 12th of October (Monday 
next), for a committee of three clergymen and three 

' laymen to act with a Committee of the House of 

; Bishops to name a Board of Missions. " 

DROPPED CANONS. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I offer 
the following resolution . 

"Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee 
on Canons to consider and report whether Canon 
8, ' Of Ministers officiating in a Foreign Language, ' 
and Canon 9, 'Of the Admission of Ministers or- 
dained by Bishops not in communion with this 
i Church, ' being Canons of Title I. of the Digest of 
! 1868, but not found in the Digest of 1871, are not 
j still a part of the Canon law of this Church. " 

These two Canons are omitted in the last Digest, 
but having not been repealed, I therefore make this 
motion, which is a proper one, that the Committee 
may report upon the matter. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I offer 
the following resolution : 

"Resolved (The House of Bishops concurring), 
That the words 'Bishops and,' in the third line of 
Section 3, of Canon 4, of Title II., be omitted. " 

This is the Canon to wliich attention was just 
called by the Deputy from Massachusetts, the Canon 
" Of the Dissolution of a Pastoral Connection." This 
Canon was amended at the last General Convention 
in this House ; the amendments were sent up to the 
other House and certain words were stricken out 
there. It was intended by our Committee that the 
Bishop should be one of the Board of Reference, and 



60 



SO the language was, "the Bishop and five Presby- 
ters." The House of Bishops, thi'ough their Commit- 
tee, struck out the words " Bishop and," leaving the 
matter to the Presbyters. They did so in every in- 
stance except in this third section ; so that it is 
necessary, in order to make the Cannon consistent, 
that the words "Bishop and," in the third 
section, should be stricken out. It now 
reads, "If any rector or assistant minister shall 
refuse to comjily with the recommendation of the 
Bishop and Presbyters." The Bishop has made no 
recommendation. The Bishop may be opposed to the 
finding of the Presbyters, but still he has to carry 
out their recommendation. It is, therefore, neces- 
sary that these words " Bishop and " be removed. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

NEW DIOCESES. 

Rev. Dr. FARRIIS'GTON, of New Jersey. I offer 
the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concm^ring), 
That Section 2, of Canon 6, of Title III., be amend- 
ed by inserting after the words ' standing committee' 
in the sixth hne, the following words: 'of the Diocese 
within the hmits of which the new Diocese is to be 
erected, or of the Standing Committee.' " 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise to a point 
of order. It is whether discussion of the subject- 
matter is in order on a mere question of reference i 

The PRESIDENT. The gentlem.an moving a 
resolution of reference has a right to speak five 
minutes on it. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I will 
not speak three. The title of the Canon is "Of the 
Organization of New Dioceses. " It is provided in 
the first section of the Canon that a new Diocese 
may be formed within the limits of another Dio- 
cese, or by the junction of two or more Dioceses, 
or parts of Dioceses, the same to be ratified by the 
General Convention and the Bishop of the Diocese 
within the limits of which another is formed ; or, 
in case of the junction of two or more Dioceses, or 
parts of Dioceses, the Bishop of eldest consecration 
oyer the Dioceses furnishing portions of such new 
Diocese shaU thereupon call the Primary Convention 
of the new Diocese, for the purpose of enabling it 
to organize, and shall fix the time and place of hold- 
ing the same, etc. The second section provides : 

" In case there should be no Bishop who can call 
such Primary Convention, pursuant to the foregoing 
provisions, then the duty of calling such Conven- 
tion for the purpose of organizing, and the duty of 
fixing the time and place of its meeting, shall be 
vested in the Standing Committee of the eldest of 
the Dioceses by the junction of which, or parts of 
which, the new Diocese may be formed." 

This section omits to make a provision for the 
calhng of a Primary Convention in a new Diocese, 
erected within the limits of an existing Diocese — 
the case which we just had before us of the new 
Diocese of New Jersey, formed within the limits of 
an existing Diocese. I will illustrate the matter. If 
a Convention in one of our existing Dioceses 
should agree to the formation of a new Diocese 
within its limits, and the Bishop should give his 
consent ; if all the papers should be properly per- 
fected, yet if, in the providence of Cod, the Bishop 
should be taken from the Diocese— even though the 
General Convention gave its consent to 
the erection of the new Diocese — a Primary 
Convention of the new Diocese could not be 
called ; there would be no authority to call 
it. It is a singular omission. I thought 
at first it must be an omission of the printers, but I 
went carefully back through Digest after Digest, 
and through all the Journals to 1838, and I found 
that this section stands in the Canons of 1838 pre- 
cisely as we have it here. There is no provision for 



the calling of a Primary Convention by a standing 
committee of a Diocese, when a new Diocese is 
erected within the limits of an existing Diocese. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The eldest Dio- 
cese has a standing committee. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. But 
that is in the other case, when a new Diocese is 
formed by the junction of parts of two or more 

DioCGSGS 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Section 2 
says: 

" In case there should be no Bishop who can call 
such Primary Convention pursuant to the foregoing 
provisions, then the duty of calling such Conven- 
tion for the purpose of organizing, and the duty of 
fixing the time and place of its meeting, shall be 
1 vested in the Standing Committee of the eldest of 

the Dioceses" 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. But go 
on : 

"By the junction of which, or parts of which, the 
new Diocese may be formed." 

I move that the resolution be referred to the Com- 
mittee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

RITUAL UNIFORMITY. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland, submitted the 
following resolution, which was referred to the 
Committee on Canons : 

"Whereas, The General Convention of 1871 de- 
clined to enact any restrictive law on Ritual Uni- 
formity, but in lieu of it passed the following reso- 
lutions : 

"'Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That this Convention hereby expresses its decided- 
condemnation of ceremonies, observances, and 
practices which are fitted to express a doctrine 
foreign to that set forth in the authorized standards 
of this Church. 

" ' Resolved, That, in the judgment of this House, 
the paternal counsel and advice of the Right Reve- 
rend Fathers, the Bishops of the Church, is deemed 
sufiacient at this time to secure the suppression of all 
that is irregular and unseemly, and to promote 
greater uniformity in conducting the pubhc wor- 
ship of the Church, and in the administration of the 
; Holy Sacraments. ' 

"And whereas, 'Our Right Rev. Fathers, the 
■ Bishops of the Church, ' did ' draw up and cause to 
i be published a Pastoral Letter to the members of 
the Church,' which Pastoral Letter, after Divine 
service duly celebrated, was read in the presence of 
both Houses of the General Convention by the 
Right Rev. the Bishop presiding in the House of 
Bishops ; 

"And whereas. In the aforesaid Pastoral Letter, 
'our Right Rev. Fathers, the Bishops of the Church, ' 
gave their paternal counsel and advice, using the 
following words : 

" ' We counsel you to bear in mind that while, on 
the one hand, we must not suffer ourselves to deny 
any real good by reason of mere popular outcries 
against Ritual forms, so we are never to allow pro- 
fessions of self-denying labor and service to bhnd 
us to the actual dangers of any movement in the 
Church. What is known as Ritualism is mainly a 
question of taste, temperament, and constitution, 
until it becomes the expression of doctrine. 

" 'The doctrine which chiefiy attempts as yet to 
express itself by Ritual in questionable and dan- 
gerous ways is connected with the Holy Eucharist. 
That doctrine is emphatically a novelty in theology. 
What is known bjs Eucharistic adoration is un- 
doubtedly inculcated and encouraged by that Ritual 
of posture lately introduced among us, which finds 
no warrant in our oflice for the administration of 
the Holy Communion.' 



61 



" And whereas, The above solemn words of coimsel i 
and warning- of ' our Right Reverend Fathers, the 
Bishops of the Church, ' have not proved suflicient 
to check and suppress l itual practices and ceremo- , 
nies whic'i have been thus most emphatically char- | 
acterized as 'questionable and dangerous,' and i 
'which find no warrant in our office for the admin- ! 
istration of the H0I3' Communion.' Therefore, | 

" Resolved (the House of Bisho}^s concurrrug), Tliat ; 
the following Canon of Ritual Uniformity be en- ! 
acted : ' i 

" ' Canon of Bitual Uniformity. j 

'"Sec. 1. The Elevation of the Elements in the 
Holy Communion in such manner as to expose them 
to the view of the people as objects toward which ado- 
ration is to be made, in or after the prayer of conse- 
cration, or in the act of administering, or in con- 
vejdng them to or from the communicants ; bow- 
ings, crossings, genuflexions, prostrations, reveren • 
ces, bowi3ig dovm upon or kissing the Lord's Table, 
and kneeling, except as allowed, provided for, or 
directed by flubric or Canon; and any gesture, pos- 
ture, or act, implying such adoration, and any cere- 
mony not prescribed as part of " the order for the ' 
administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Com- 
munion " ; likewise the use at any administration of 
the Holy Communion of any Hymns, Prayers, Col- 
lects, Epistles, or Gospels other tha.n those ai^pointed 
in the authorized formularies of the Church, are 
hereby forbidden. 

" ' Sec. 2. In all matters pertaining to the Public 
Worshiji of the Church, to the ornaments, ai'range- 
ments, and appointments of the Holy Table, and in 
everything connected with Ritual in the perform- 
ance of Divine Service, including the vestments to 
be used, about which there is no specific direction in 
the Book of Common Prayer, or the Offices and 
Ordinal thereto appended, or in any Legislation, 
General or Diocesan, of this Church!^ the admoni- 
tion or judgment of the Bishop of any Diocese, 
given in' writing, shall be regarded as binding, to be I 
followed and obeyed by every minister of that Dio- 
cese.'" 

ENGLISH CHURCH CONGRESS. 

The PRESIDENT. Just now a letter was handed 
me directed "to the President, if Mr. Edwards 
is not present." Mr. Edwards not being in the 
House, I have opened the letter, and find it to be 
from the Bishop of Lichfield in these words : 

"Please to request the President to obtain the 
consent of the House of Deputies to allow you to 
present the enclosed invitation from the Congress 
at Brighton to the Bishops and Clergy to attend the 
Congress proposed to be held at Stoke in 1875. 

" Yours most truly, 

"G. A. Lichfield." 

This telegram contains the invitation : 

" Brighton, October 9, 1874. 
"Bishop of Lichfield, >Tew York, America : 

"Convention, New York. — Congress meets next 
year at Stoke (D.v.) Invite American Bishops and 
Clergy. 

"Bishop of Chichester, President." 

It is for the House to make such disposition of the 
matter as propriety and com'tesy require. 

The Rev. Dr. DALZELL, of Louisiana. I move 
that the President of this House be requested to 
send a response to the Bishop of Cliichester, for the 
Congress sitting at Brighton, acknowledging the [ 
kind invitation. ; 

The motion was agreed to. 

organization of house of deputies. 

Mr. CASS, of Pittsburgh. I have a resolution to 
offer of business simply, and without any preamble, i 
" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be in- I 



structed to report a Canon or rule of order for the 
proper organization of the General Convention at 
the commencement of each regular session thereof ; 
and that it consider and I'eport upon the election of 
one or more Vice-Presidents to preside in the ab- 
sence of the President from the Chair." 

To this date, sir, neither the Constitution nor 
Canons nor the rules of order that have been adopted 
provide for the organization of this House. Only in 
a rule of order made in 1847, prescribing the duties 
of the Secretary, is the office of President men- 
tioned, and then merely incidentally. It is with a 
view to correct this omission that I offer this resolu- 
tion. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I move to in- 
sert "House of Deputies" in place of "General 
Convention." 

Mr. CASS, of Pittsburgh. I mean of course the 
House of Deputies, and I accept the amendment. I 
did not propose that we shall organize anything 
that we do not have the control of. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be so 
modified. The question is on the motion to refer 
the resolution to the Committee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

adoration of the elements. 

Mr. CHURCHILL, of Kentucky. I offer the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"Resolved by the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties (the House of Bishops concurring), That every 
minister in this Church shall be liable to present- 
ment and trial for using any ritual acts or observ- 
ances wliich teach or symbolize any doctrine contra- 
ry to that held by the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
the United States of America, and that the authori- 
ties of the Church shall take steps with all reason- 
able p] omptness to suppress all ceremonies, services, 
or ritual acts which symbolize or teach the doctrine 
of the adoration of Christ corporally present in the 
Elements upon the Altar. " 

I merely move to refer the resolution to the Com- 
mittee on Canons. I shall say nothing about it. 

The motion to refer was agreed to. 

VIRGINIA ON ritual UNIFORMITY. 

Rev. Dr. NORTON, of Virgmia, submitted the 
following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the preamble and resolutions of 
the Council of the Diocese of Virginia, in response 
to so much of the Bishop's address as related to 
Ritualism, adopted on the 22d day of May, 1874 (a copy 
of which is herewith submitted), be referred to the 
Committee on Canons, with instructions to enquire 
into the expediency of reporting a Canon in con- 
formity with the suggestions therein contained." 

Copy of the Preamble and Resolutions of Vir- 
ginia. 

" The Council of the Diocese of Virginia, viewing 
with great concern the introduction of Romish 
errors in the Protestant Episcopal Church — viz. : 
in the open avowal of a doctrine of the real 
presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, differing 
from the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation by 
distinctions which to the common understanding 
seem merely 'speculative and nugatory,' and 
which, ' by means of accessories of lights, mu- 
sic, vestments, incense, postures, genuflexions, 
and adorations,' tends to change the Holy 
Communion of the Prayer-Book into the 
Romish Mass; in the encouragement given 
to members of our Communion by their pastors to 
practise auricular confession, and to receive private 
absolution, in imitation of the Romish Sacrament of 
Penance ; in the offering of prayers for the dead, 
invocation of saints and angels, and worship of the 



62 



Virgin Mary, after the manner of the Church of 
Rome ; together with other assimilations tii teach- 
ing and practice to the doctrine of the Church of 
Rome — feels constrained to express a deep convic- 
tion that the continued existence of these alien ele- 
ments in our beloved Church, not only impedes her 
growth and prosperity, but. if unchecked, must de- 
stroy her Protestant character. Therefore, 

" Resolved, That our Deputies to the next General 
Convention be instructed to use their eai-nest endea- 
vors to obtain efficient legislation for the removal 
of Romish errors and practices from the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, and the enforcement of such legis- 
lation by proper discipline."' 

" Resolved, That this Council does not believe any 
legislation would be effective for removing the doc- 
trines and practices referred to, which shall not ex- 
pressly forbid, in the administration of the Holy 
Comrnunion and on other occasions of public wor- 
ship, the acts hereinafter enumerated, to wit : 

"1, The use of incense. 
2. Placing or retaining a crucifix in any part of 
the church. 

"3. Carrying a cross in procession in the church. 

' ' 4. The use of lights on or about the Holy Table 
except when necessary. 

"5. The elevation of the Elements in the Holy 
Communion, in such manner as to expose them to 
the view of the people as objects toward which 
adoration is to be made, in or after the prayer of 
consecration, or in the act of administering them, 
or in conveying them to or from the communicants. 

" 6. The mixing of water with the wine as part of 
the service, or in the presence of the congregation. 

" 7. The washing of the priest's hands, or the ab- 
lution of the vessels, in the presence of the congrega- 
tion. 

"8. Bowings, crossings, genuflexions, prostrations, 
reverences, bowing down upon or kissing the Holy 
Table, and kneeling, except as allowed, provided for, 
or directed by Rubric or Canon : it being provided 
that reverence at the mention of the name of the Lord 
Jesus is not intended to be disallowed ; and it being 
further provided that private personal devotion, 
before or after official ministration, is not to be un- 
derstood to include or justify any of the acts pro- 
hibited. 

"9. The celebration or receiving of the Holy 
Communion by any Bishop or Priest when no person 
receives with him. 

"10. Employing or permitting any person or per- 
sons, not in Holy Orders, to assist the Minister in 
any part of the order for the administration of the 
Holy Communion. 

"11. Using, at any administration of the Holy 
Communion, any Prayers, Collects, G-ospels, or 
Epistles, other than those provided in the Book of 
Common Prayer, or under Section 14, of Canon 13, 
of Title I., of the Digest. 

"12. The use of wafer-bread in the Holy Com- 
mimion. 

" The practice of auricular confession and private 
absolution should likewise be forbidden, and aU 
other practices and usages not sanctioned by the 
Book of Common Prayer. 

"No clerical vestment should be used, except the 
present Episcopal robes, a white surplice, a black or 
white stole, a black cassock, a black gown and 
bands. " 

The PRESIDENT. What motion is made f 
Rev. Dr. NORTON, of Virginia. I move simply 
to refer the matter to the Committee on Canons. 
The motion was agreed to. 

BEMOVAL OF COMMUNICANTS. 

Rev.- Mr. BROWN, of Michigan, submitted the 
following resolution, which was referred to the 
Committee on Canons : 



"Resolved, That it be refeiTed to the Committee 
on Canons to enquire as to theesyediency of amend- 
ing Section 1 of Canon 12, Title II. of the Digest, so 
that the word ' not ' shall follow the words ' be re- 
quired, ' instead of preceding the same." 

REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF DEPUTIES. 

Rev. Dr. BURR, of Ohio. I offer the following 
resolution, to .be referred to the Committee on 
Canons : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be in- 
structed to enquii'e and report upon the expedien- 
cy of reducing the number of representatives from 
eight to four, two of each order, from each diocese 
entitled to representation in this body." 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I would ask to 
add to that these words, "and how far such rule 
could be passed without an amendment of the Con- 
stitution." I believe it does not require an amend- 
ment to the Constitution ; but I want that question 
enquired into by the Committee. 

Rev. Dr. BURR, of Ohio. Let the resolution be 
referred to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion now is to refer 
the resolution to the Committee on Amendments to 
the Constitution. 

The motion was agreed to. 

JOINT COJmiTTEE ON THE HYMNAL. 

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia. I offer the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That a special Joint Committee on the Hymnal be 
appointed to enquire whether the instructions of the 
General Convention of 1871, directing the pubUca- 
tion of the Hymnal as expressed in the resolution 
on page 153 of the Journal of that year, have been 
carried out. The said Committee shall consist, on 

the part of this House, of presbyters and 

laymen, designated by the Chair, and shall make re- 
port to this Convention at an early day." 

I should like to claim the privilege allowed of a 
few minutes' explanation. It is with great unwilling- 
ness that I rise to this matter, for it involves much 
that is in itself unpleasant. It seems to reflect upon 
the fidelity to a committed trust on the part of those 
whom we admire, and whose character stands in the 
estimation of no one higher than in my own. That 
which I have to state was known to me 
two and a half years ago. I supposed it 
was known to others also, and would be 
brought to the attention of the Church. It is now 
fifteen months since, in two of the most widely- 
published papers in the Chm'ch, the substance of 
what I am about to say was made known. Two 
months ago it was published again, more particu- 
larly, under my own signature. It was to the ef- 
fect that this flymnal adopted three years ago by 
an almost unanimous vote has not been, according 
to the intention of the Convention, pubhshed. It 
has been said in various quarters, and I think 
proved — it has been proved by the' Conventions 
of the Chm'ch — that changes, many imauthorized, 
have been made in this book. On page 153 of the 
Journal of the last Convention of the House of 
Deputies, permission was granted to the Committee 
on the llymnal to correct hterary blemishes and 
certain inaccuracies, to omit eleven specified hymns, 
and to add several hymns. The first lines of some- 
thing hke thirty-one or thirty-two hymns were 
read. They are not on the J ournal, and not on the 
pages of the stenographic report. 

I will not go through all the changes, but the fact 
stands that the Committee or the publishers omitted 
the eleven specified hymns, and ten more ; they in- 
serted forty-six hymns ; they selected and applied 
over four hundred texts of Scripture which are not in 



63 



this book, which was adopted. Not only that, but 
they have changed hymns over and over again. 

A member of that Committee, the Bishop of West- 
ern New York, has stated in public that he did not 
know how the "Rock of Ages " came to be printed 
as it is. It is in the Hymnal adopted, I think, pre- 
cisely as it is in the Prayer-Book. It is, in this 
book, which has been published, in one additional 
stanza, four stanzas, and many changes in the 
phi-aseology. It is necessary only to look to the 
very first hymn in this Hymnal as printed to 
see the liberties that have been taken. The 
first hymn in the Hymnal printed is not the 
first hymn in the Hymnal proposed. The general 
arrangement of the hymns has been changed. In 
this first hymn I have here thirteen changes noted, 
changes some of them unimportant, some of them 
in capitalization, some in punctuation, some in the 
change of a single word ; but in the very first hymn 
in the Hymnal one stanza has been omitted and 
two have been inserted. The second hymn is some- 
what better. I have enumerated there several 
changes in punctuation and phraseology. The last 
line of the fourth hymn is changed from "The 
Nazarene, the Crucified," to " O God ! is this the 
Crucified?" and the fifth stanza has been omitted 
altogether. 

I think I have said enough. The book is before 
you, and any one can look at it. The marks of the 
proof-readings of variations in this Hymnal, printed 
from the Hymnal adopted, are, I believe, over 1,500. 
Some of them are very slight, but I submit whether, 
in any book that the Convention has adopted and 
sent forth to be used in the worship of the Church, 
fidelity to a committed trust does not compel the 
Committee to change not a point or a letter in it, 
any more than they would in the standard Prayer- 
Book of the Church, without clear instructions to 
that effect. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution leaves a 
blank. 

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia. I suggest two 
clergymen and two laymen, and I would ask the 
President to depart from the usual rule of appoint- 
ing the mover of the resolution on the committee, 
because my verdict has gone forth. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be modi- 
fied by so filling the blank. 

The resolution was agreed to, and the President 
subsequently appointed Rev. Dr. Benedict, of 
Georgia, Rev. Dr. Rudder, of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Copp6e, of Central Pennsylvania, and Mr. Bennett, 
of Massachusetts, as the Committee. 

AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE V. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I offer the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Amendments 
of the Constitution be instructed to enquire whether 
the amendment to the filth article of the Constitu- 
tion was adopted at the last Convention." 

The reason why I offer this resolution is briefly 
this : The amendment was never passed by the 
House of Bishops. The House of Bishops never act- 
ed on it. The Convention adjourned before the ex- 
piration of the three days allowed them in the Con- 
stitution. There is a precedent of 1853 
which may be claimed for its passage. 
If it be a precedent I hope the Convention will re- 
pudiate it. I think it dangerous in the extreme 
that when this Convention adjourns before the ex- 

giration of three days, and the House of Bishops 
as not replied to our action, such canons or amend- 
ments to the Constitution as we have sent them 
should be regarded as adopted. I am anxious to see 
the amendment in this case adopted, but I do not 
like the mode in which it is proposed to be adopted. 
I have nothing more to say, except simply to refer 



I the question to the Committee on Amendments to 

I the Constitution to tell whether that principle is the 

i law of this Church, 

j The resolution was so referred. 

i HOUR OF ADJOURNMENT. 

i Rev. Dr. CORBETT, of Illinois. As time is re- 
j quired to prepare this church for Divine service to- 
morrow, I move that we continue in session to-day 
i until two o'clock, and then adjourn for the day. 
^ The motion was agreed to. 

I THE GENERAL CONVENTION. 

I Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton, submitted the 
following resolutions, which were referred to the 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution : 
I "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
! That the alterations to the Constitution set forth in 
I the following resolutions be proposed, and that the 
' same be made known to the several Diocesan Con- 
I ventions, in pursuance of Article IX. of the Consti- 
j tution, viz. : 

; " ' 1. Resolved, That Article II, of the Constitution 
j be amended by prefixing the two following para- 
! graphs, viz. : 

" ' " The General Convention shall be composed of 

two Houses — the House of Bishops and the House of 

Deputies. 

" ' "The House of Bishops shall consist of all the 
Bishops of this Church having Diocesan or Mis- 
sionary jurisdictions, and of the Assistant Bishops 
of the Church." 

"'2. Resolved, That resolved that Article II. be 
further amended by striking out the phrase com- 
mencing, viz., "The Church in each Diocese shall 
be entitled to a representation of both the clergy and 
the laity, " and inserting instead thereof the words 
following, " The House of Deputies shall consist of a 
representation of both the clergy and the laity of 
the Church in each Diocese." 

" ' 3. Resolved, That Article III. of the Constitu 
tion be stricken out, and the foUoAving be inserted 
instead thereof, viz. : 

" ' "Article III. The two Houses shall in all legisla- 
tive matters be co-ordinate, each having a right to 
originate and propose acts for the concurrence of 
the other; and when any jjro posed act shall have 
passed either House, the same shall be transmitted 
to the other House; if concurred in by the said 
House, it shall become a law. And all deliberations 
and action of either House on legislative business 
shall be in open session, and all acts of the Conven- 
tion shall be authenticated by both." ' " 

MISSIONARY bishop's REPORT. 

The SECRETARY presented the triennial report 
of the Missionary Bishop of China and Japan, which 
was referred to the Committee on the Domestic and 
Foreign Missionary Society. 

CONSTRUCTION OF RULES. 

The PRESIDENT. I wish to state to the House 
that it will take us a little while to get into woi-king 
order under the new rules. A while ago I was 
under the impression, as stated by one gentleman in 
contradiction of another, that this order of 
business prescribed in the fifth rule formed 
an order of the day that took precedence of the 
order mentioned in the seventh rule. Having 
j thought the matter over, I came to a different con- 
clusion ; and, upon consultation with a gentleman 
I near me who is well acquainted with the proceed- 
ings of other deliberative bodies, my second opinion 
I was confirmed as without doubt. Therefore, under 
I the seventh rule, at 12 o'clock each day, unless 
j there is a special order of the day, the Calendar 
' will be taken up. That is the present ruling of the 
I Chair for our future action. 



Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. In 
consultation with several members it has occurred 
to us that the difficulties and misapprehensions 
which undoubtedly exist would be removed if, be- 
fore the words "order of the day," we should in- 
sert the v.'-ord "special, "so as to read: "Unless 
there be a special order of the day." That would 
obviate all misapprehension. 

The PRESIDENT. The present ruluig of the 
Chair will satisfy that doubt ; and if it is thought 
wrong, of course the House will be able to decide. 

The Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. If there is 
an order of the dav, it will be of course special. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Under that 
riding, are we to understand that the daily order of 
business should cease at twelve o'clock i 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir ; if there is no order 
of the day to take its place. This morning we have 
gone on because there was nothing on the Calendar. 
At twelve o'clock the special order will be taken up, 
or, if there be none, the Calendar will be proceeded 
with. 

TESTIMONIALS OP BISHOPS-ELECT. 

The Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I submit 
the following resolution, to be referred to the Com- 
mittee on Canons : 

"E.esolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
directed to consider and report upon the expedi- 
ency of so amending Sections 2 and 3 of Canon 
13, Title I., as to provide that the testimonials of 
Bishops-elect shall be sent to the several Diocesan 
Standing Committees and the several Bishops in 
all cases, instead of as now to the General Conven- 
tion when within six mouths of the meeting of that 
body." 

The object of this is to prevent the necessity of 
discussing the qualifications of any kind of Bishops- 
elect in this body. Now the Standing Committees 
and the Bishops separately pass upon the qualifica- 
tions of Bishops-elect in five cases out of six. It is 
only when the election is within six months of the 
meeting of the General Convention that 
the testimonials are I'equired to be brought 
before the General Convention. In all other 
cases the Standing Committees and the Bishops 
act. It seems to me it would be a decided improve- 
ment to have them in this case also go to the Stand- 
ing Committees and the Bishops, and that the testi- 
monials of a Bishop-elect should never be brought 
into this House for their consideration. That is the 
object of my resolution. I move to refer it to the 
Committee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

POINTING OF THE PSALTER. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire, sub- 
mitted the following resolution, which was referred 
to the Committee on the Prayer-Book : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the Standing Committee on the Standard 
Prayer-Book be authorized and instructed to intro- 
duce into all future editions of the Standard Prayer- 
Book the colon or musical pause in each verse of 
the Psalter, and Canticles, in accordance with the 
pointing of the Prayer-Book of the Church of Eng- 
land." 

THE HYMNAL. 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. I believe a 
resolution was offered a while ago by a gentleman 
from Georgia, that a special joint committee be ap- 
pointed to examine into the publication of the Hym- 
nal. I have here documents from the Diocese of 
Louisiana rega.rding the examination of the Hym- 
nal, which I desire to have accepted by the House 
and referred to the appropriate committee. 

Th.- PRESIDENT.^ The Chair will receive the 
papers. 



Rev. Dr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. They need 
not be read. They are very long, and, I think, will 
assist the Committee in arriving at a conclusion. I 
move that they be referred to the Joint Special 
Committee on the Hymnal. 

The motion was agreed to. 

THE PRESIDING BISHOP. 

i Rev. Dr. KNiCKERBACKER, of Minnesota, sub- 
' naitted the following proposed Canon, which was 
1 referred to the Committee on Canons : 

" On the Presiding Bishop. 
"Sec. 1. The senior Bishop of the Church, on 
becoming the Presiding Bishop, or at any time 
thereafter, may resign the jurisdiction of his Diocese, 
, by issuing a notice to that effect to all the Bishops 
I and Standing Committees of the Church. In the 
I event of his doing so, his salary for the remainder 
I of his life shall be provided for by the general 

Chm^ch, in the way hereinafter named. 
I "Sec. 2. When the Presiding Bishop shall have 
[ resigned the jurisdiction of liis Diocese, it shall be 
the duty of the Treasurer of the General Conven- 
I tion to assess and collect annually from each Diocese 
I of the Church a sum equal to one dollar for every 
clergyman canouically connected therewith, and 
i pay over the same in quarterly instalments to the 
! Presiding Bishop as his salary. The said assessment 
^ shall commence from the first of January 
preceding the resignation of his jurisdiction 
by the Presiding Bishop who shall first avail 
himself of the provisions of the Canon. 
"Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the Diocese over 
] which the Presiding Bishop shall have had diocesan 
jurisdiction to provide a I'esidence for him during 
the remainder of his life, and the said Diocese shall 
j then be I'elieved of all other payment of his salary, 
except the annual compensation provided for in 
Section 2 of tliis Canon. 

" Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the General Con- 
; vention at each Triennial Session to appoint a Board 
; of Trustees of the fund for the support of the Presi- 
ding Bishop. The said board shall consist of five 
members, of whom the Treasurer of the General 
Convention ex officio shall be one. It shall be the 
duty of such board to collect, invest, and manage 
an endowment for the purpose, and to become duly 
incorporated for the objects of this Canon. 

' ' Sec. 5. When the annu al interest from such fund 
shaU reach the sum of $5,000, the interest of the fund 
; shall be paid to the Presiding Bishop as his salary, 
' and the assessments on the dioceses shall cease. The 
; Trustees may, from time to time, apply the interest, 
i if such there be, of such fund to the increase of the 
salary of the Presiding Bishop beyond what he re- 
ceives from the Diocesan assessments, until the total 
sum paid him annuaUy from both sources shall reach 
$5,000. But no pail; of the principal of said fund 
j shall be used for this purpose." 

TIME OF ACTION OF BISHOPS. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. Mr. President, 
there is an article in the Constitution — Article III. 
— which limits the power of the Bishops to approve 
or disapprove any measure sent from this House to 
tne period of three days. I think it will be evident 
to this House, upon a moment's thought, that while 
this act is a httle discourteous to our Right Rev. 
Fathers, it subjects them to a condition which they 
are hardly able to comply with, considering the 
largeness of the business now before the two 
Houses. 

The PRESIDENT. Allow me to suggest to the 
gentleman from Maryland that that matter has been 
; referred to the Committee on Amendments to the 
; Constitution this morning. 



65 



Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. About leaving 

out the article 'i 

The PRESIDENT. Changing the article. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. My resolution 
is : 

"Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution to consider and 
report upon the propriety of striking out from Ar- 
ticle III. of the Constitution aU after the first sen- 
tence ending with the words, 'and all acts of 
the Convention shall be authenticated by both 
Houses.' " 

The PRESIDENT. Dr. Stearns offered a resolu- 
tion on that subject. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. If the House of 
Bishops adopts the same rule as this House, of tak- 
ing up everything in order on the Calendar, it is 
easy to see that it cannot always within the period 
of three days send back a message to this House 
either approving or disapproving. If there were 
no other reason, I think we should refer the matter 
to our Committee on Amendments to the Constitu- 
tion to consider the propriety of a change. 

Besides I think there is an implied discourtesy on 
the part of this House to the other House, made up 
as it is at this time of so large a number representa- 
tive of the wisdom, ability, and piety of this Church. 

Then it will be seen that the last sentence is only 
of value as a historic monument, for it reads, "that 
until there shall be three or more Bishops as afore- 
said, any Bishop attending a General Convention 
shall be a member ex-officio, " etc. Of course that is 
wholly a matter of the past. The Bishops we do 
not expect ever to be reduced to a number so small 
as three. 

I move the ref ei ence of this proposed change to 
the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. 
The motion was agreed to, 

THOMAS A. JOHNSON. 

Mr. SMITH, of Western New York, submitted 
the following resolution, which was referred to the 
Committee on Memorials of Deceased Members. 

" Resolved, That this House place upon its records 
the expression of its grateful sense of the eminent 
and long-continued service to the Church of the late 
Thomas A. Johnson, ll.d., a Lay Deputy from the 
Diocese of Western New York, taken to his rest 
since the last Convention." 

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION. 

Rev. Dr. BROWN, of Albany. I present the fol- 
lowing resolution of the Convention of the Diocese 
of Albany : 

"Resolved, That the idea of a Constitutional 
Commission to consider the revisal of our present 
General Constitution, as suggested by the Bishop of 
Western New York, and approved at this Conven- 
tion by our own Bishop, is heartily welcomed by 
the Diocese of Albany ; and our Deputies in General 
Convention are hereby instructed to use their best 
exertions to ensure its adoption by that body." 

I move that it be referred to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution. 

The motion was agreed to. 

COMMITTEE ON CANONS. 

The PRESIDENT. It is with great pain that I 
announce that I have to make a change in the Com- 
mittee on Canons on account of the absence of Dr. 
Haight. If Dr. Haight should recover sufficiently 
to attend in his place and to act on the Committee, 
the gentleman whom I now appoint will gladly give 
way for him. I name Dr. Beach, of the same dele- 

fation of the Diocese of New York, in place of Dr. 
[aight upon the Committee on Canons. 
Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Of course, 



sir, if Dr. Haight is able to be present at this Con- 
vention, and to serve on this Committee, I will at 
once retire, 

PROVINCIAL SYSTEM. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Mimiesota. I have been 
hoping that some older member of the House would 
introduce the subject-matter of the resolution I am 
about to offer; but as this seems the place for the in- 
troduction of subjects for consideration in our fu- 
ture deliberations, I now venture to introduce it : 

" Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution to report upon 
the expediency of appointing a commission, to con- 
sist of members of both Houses, to devise a Pro- 
vincial System for this Church." 

The reason why I introduce this resolution is that 
at a late meeting of the Council of the Diocese of 
Minnesota its Clerical Deputies to this Convention 
were requested to urge upon the General Conven- 
tion the devising of a provincial system. As I said, 
I have been hoping that some older member of the 
House would be prepared with a resolution at this 
time, or with some concrete proposition ; but in or- 
der to introduce the matter, simply that it may be 
thrown into proper shape, I venture to offer the res- 
olution. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution. 

ADJOURNMENT. 

The PRESIDENT. A resolution was adopted a 
while ago to sit until two o'clock to-day. The time 
has come, however, when by another resolution of 
the House we take a recess, and there will be no 
time to come back and have a session at two o'clock. 
I therefore suggest that an adjournment be now 
moved, if there be no further business to be pre- 
sented. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that 
the House adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the House ad- 
journed till Monday, at ten o'clock a.m. 



FIFTH DAY. 

Monday, October 12, 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
10 a.m. 

Morning Prayer was said to the Creed by Rev. 
Joseph A. Stone, of Delaware. The Creed and 
Prayers were said by Rev. William Fulton, d.d., of 
Easton. The Benediction was pronounced by the 
Right Rev. Samuel Allen McCoskry, d.d., d.c.l., 
Bishop of Michigan. 

The minutes of the proceedings of Saturday last 
were read and approved. 

DEPUTIES FROM NIOBRARA. 

Mr, WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I hold in my 
hand a paper of such unusual interest, so unique in 
its character, that, after its reading by the Secre- 
tary, I will ask leave to make a few explanatory re- 
marks. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

" House of Bishops, 

"October 10, 1874. 
"I hereby certify that at a meeting of the Con- 
vention of Niobrara, August 28th, 29th, and .30th, 
the Rev. Samuel D, Hinman was elected a Clerical 
Deputy, and Henry Whipple Waumdixun Lay De- 
puty to the Assembly in New York, October 7th. 

"WILLIAM H. HARE, 
"Missionary Bishop of Niobrara." 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, 
this paper was entrusted to me as chairman of a 



66 



committee of this House on Indian Affairs ; and the 
occasion is one so peculiar that I think a few explan- 
atory remarks should be made. 

The missionary jurisdiction of Niobrara may not be 
mapped out in the minds of those who are here as 
clearly as it is in the minds of those of us who have 
visited it. It lies on the west bank of the Missouri 
River, north of Nebraska, up to the forty-sixth par- 
allel, extending out to Wyoming Territory, and in- 
cluding most of the Black Hills, a country somewhat 
noted just now. It includes also the adjoining Indian 
reser^^ations on the east bank of the Missouri River, 
and one in Nebraska, a few miles from the large In- 
dian territory in Dakota, to which I have referred. 

Now, for the first time in the history of our 
Church, a full-blooded Indian is to be introduced to 
our sittings, and indeed he has already been intro- 
duced. He is a full-blooded Dakota, usually called 
Sioux. The Dakota nation is divided into about 
fourteen tribes. This man belongs to what is usually 
known as the Santee Sioux tribe. Until the year 
1862 it was located in Minnesota, and for a long 
while it was thoroughly peaceable. When they 
were dispossessed of most of their land, and other- 
wise fearfully abused, they were stirred up to ac- 
tual ' hostilities. In the year 1862 about one 
thousand whites were massacred by these 
Santees. They were then removed to the 
Missouri River, and at last settled in Nebraska on 
the reservation where they now live. This man 
was a warrior at that time, a heathen, and not only 
a warrior, but a conjurer, practising this peculiar 
art. He belonged to the band of Wabashaw, the 
principal chief of the Santee Sioux. Soon after he 
went to the Missouri, he became a Christian man, 
and for eleven years he has been as consistent, 
humble, and devoted a Chinstian (his enemies 
being his judges, as well as his friends) as 
can be found in any part of the country. He 
is an active, zealous Christian. I have seen him 
time and again on his own reservation, and have 
heard the testimony of the white men round about 
him, as well as that of his own people. Henry 
Waumdixun is the best farmer on that reservation. 
He is warden of a church built by a lady of New 
York. His nephew, Paul Mazaku'te, was its min- 
ister. Very many of you have read the ' ' Testimony 
to the Love of Jesus, " by the Rev. Paul Mazakute. 
Those who have not may have that privilege by ac- 
cepting a copy. It was published by the Indian 
Missionary Commission. 

This man now comes among us from a band of In- 
dians, whom I believe to be, in point of intelligence, 
industry, and morality, equal to any number of set- 
tlers who can be found in the same space in any 
part of this country. Carpenters leave out their 
tools without putting them up at night. Houses are 
unlocked, and people sleep there with a feeling of 
perfect security. I never felt safer in any part of 
the world than when sleeping among these 
Indians without any protection. They have 
a small police 'force of their own — no military 
near them — and that police force is quite 
capable of controlling the entire reservation. Their 
worship is most reverent ; and of all Christian men I 
think Paul Mazakute and the two Deacons, who are 
also dead, were as high types of humble, simple, 
faithful men of Christ as we are likely ever to meet 
with. I am sure it must give us all pleasure to re- 
ceive, for the first time, one of the aborigines of 
the land. 

What privileges you, Mr. President, may 
grant I have no means of knowing, for under our 
present rules delegates from the various missionary 
jurisdictions have no right to speak, save only on 
special subjects, after a special invitation. 

Gov. Stevenson is on the same Committee with 
me. I tried to induce him to introduce this Indian ; 



and I hope, sir, you will allow him the privilege of 
saying a few words. 
I I do feel it to be a privilege to introduce to this 
I Convention a full-blooded Indian, giving him all th 
j advantages that we at the last session allowed to 
) Deputies from the various missionary jurisdictions, 
i I hardly know of any like occurrence, save when 
i at the great Paschal Feast of the Jews, after a 
i drought by reason of the sins of that people, a few 
I ears of early ripe corn were offered before the Lord 
as an earnest that the great harvest was ready. I 
have just such a privilege in introducing to this 
I House this man as a type of all the Indians in this 
1 land ; for when they are projDerly reached by the 
I Gospel, when they realize that Christianity is some- 
1 thing more than words, they seem ready to yield 
their hearts to its influence and become as earnest 
and devoted Christians, 
j The PRESIDENT. Does Governor Stevenson 

wish to address the House i 
I Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Mr. President, 
I I concur with the Deputy from Pennsylvania, that 
I the admission of a native Indian as a Deputy in the 
General Convention of the Episcopal Church is an 
epoch in its progress. It ought to be a proud day 
! for the assembled Church of America which wit- 
nesses the introduction of a red man as a Represen- 
tative from a far distant jurisdiction in this bodv of 
\ Christ. 

But there is another aspect in which it gladdens 
my heart, and in which I am sure it ought to glad- 
den the heart of every Bishop and every Clerical 
\ and Lay Deputy in this body. It teaches a practical 
; lesson of the success of this blessed Church of ours 
' as a great missionary agency in spreading the Gos- 
pel of our Saviour. We have heard that the Epis- 
copal Church was too restrictive and too contracted 
I to be a missionary, that that great labor was for the 
I Puritan. But, sir, when we look around us and 
I see that the Episcopal Church has already 
i eight missions actively engaged in bringing 
these savages to the cross of Christ, when we see by 
the report on the Domestic Missions what they have 
done towards evangelizing the Indians, and when 
1 we ourselves see an Indian himself to-day who 
! comes with his credentials not only as a Christian, 
but as a Deputy, it stamps under foot the falsehood 
that the Episcopal Church is not a great mission- 
! ary agency, as it ought to be, in saving the souls 
I of men. And if I were to go back and in- 
j dulge in fancy, and refer to that memor- 
1 able period of 1607, when the first landing took 
I place at Jamestown, in Virginia, when the Indians 
\ held all this vast domain, and turn to the tradition- 
i ary incident of Pocahontas and John Smith, and 
i reflect that the Indians had been driven to the far- 
j thest frontier, it is a blessed thought for the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church of America, even if our peo- 
: pie have taken their lands and done them great 
injustice, that she has at a later day become an act- 
ive agency in bringing them home to Christ. [Ap- 
I plause.] I have had, sir, some little experience — 

The PRESIDENT. Will the gentleman from 
: Kentucky pause a moment There have been a 
I good many breaches of order in this House since the 
commencement of our session unknown before in 
the Convention, meeting as it does in a consecrated 
Church— I mean the yielding to the impulse to ap- 
plaud. It is perhaps somewhat difficult to resist 
that impulse sometimes, but I think that the 
right feeling of the members of this Convention, 
; and of every member of the Church, will assure all 
\ here that it is necessary, proper, and reverential 
: that that impulse should in all cases be resisted, and 
i that there should be no repetition of that which is 
j certainly improper in the house of God, because if 
I you can applaud ybu have the same right to exhibit 
I dissent, and then we should have a Babel. The 



67 



gentleman from Kentucky will now please resmne 
his remarks. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentuckj^ I was just 
about concluding: what I had to say. If this body 
could know, as it has become my official duty to 
know as a member of the Committee on Indian 
Aft'airs of the Senate of the United States, the 
interest which the missionary labors and efforts of 
this Church are awakening among the red men, I 
am sure they would indulge in all the feelings of 
joyous satisfaction which I myself experience this 
day in the introduction of this Indian Deputy. 

Sir, there is a peculiar aptitude in the Epis- 
copal Church as a missionary. The Indian is not 
destitute of sense or of sagacity. I heard the 
•venerable prelate from Minnesota say, many years 
ago, that he had often had Indians come to him and 
bear their voluntary testimony to the excellence of 
the Episcopal Church. He told me that an Indian 
once approached him and said : "Oh, I hear you 
pray to-day ; I go to-morrow ; I hear you pray the 
same prayer, and you must have one God. But 
when I go to other religious denominations, one 
pray one thing and another pray another thing ; it 
is not the same prayer, and it cannot be the same 
God." This may be a homely illustration, but it 
touches my heart, and it seems to me to be excellent 
logic. 

But the grand test of the missionary efforts of the 
Church is in their success. Take the White Earth 
Mission in Minnesota and see what has been done. 
I myself have received and read, from an admirable 
missionary minister, a native Indian, a letter which 
would almost bring tears from any man, praying to 
be delivered from the vices of the white men, who 
surround them there for the purpose of plunder 
or for the purposes of trade. Think of that, Mr. 
President I an Indian appealing to us to keep away 
the men who go there for the object of traffic, and 
by the use of liquors, and a resort to other vices, 
attempt to do away with the good which this In- 
dian minister is achieving among his own people ! 

But, sir, I only rose to second the effort of my 
friend from Pennsylvania, and I close with a single 
thought. While I believe in most missionary ef- 
forts the people themselves ought to be made to 
contribute and to labor, and not to look abroad for 
charities, in order to create a spirit of self-reliance, 
it is different in regard to our Indians. 
They have not any means of self-reliance ; 
they are literally the poor of that Gospel 
who, Christ s&ys, must have the Gospel preach- 
ed to them ; and we must bear in mind, as I think, 
that this is an exception to the general rule; and 
while I would make all infant missions independent 
as soon as possible, and train them to exertion and 
self-reliance, yet in the case of the Indian we must 
put om- hands in our pockets and encourage them 
in clothes, in books, in schools, in the building of 
churches. Let us do that, and my word for it, sir, 
the Episcopal Church will become one of the grandest 
missionary agencies that the nineteenth century has 
witnessed. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Mr. President and 
gentlemen of the House : It fell to my lot in the 
last Convention to urge most earnestly, strenuously, 
and, as it happened, successfully, the measure which 
admits Deputies from missionary jurisdictions to 
this floor. I consider it the best service I have ever 
rendered to the Church, and I shall truly rejoice to 
welcome oui' colored brother in the sessions of this 
body. 

I rejoice, also, for another reason, affecting deeply 
the character not only of this Convention, but of 
the whole country. For a century, at least, the 
United States has been imder the execration of the 
civilized world for its gross misconduct to the abo- 
rigines of this country. It has been rebuked in all 



I the languages of Europe for its cruelty and inhu- 
manity to these tribes, and we have richly deserved 
I it. The great De Tocqueville, in one of the most 
delicate sarcasms in his book, speaking of 
I the various contrivances by which, by 
' fraud and rapine and improper laws, the 
Indian race was being extinguished, ruined, 
I and annihilated imder the forms of law, observes 
that never were the aborigines of a whole conti- 
; nent exterminated and extirpated with a stricter 
J regard for the laws of humanity! That was the 
! sneer of the great French writer. I am in hopes, 
! sir, the time has come when we shall wash out that 
j blot and efface that stain from our national escutch- 
I eon; and I hold, sir, that we are doing it most 
I effectually bv the action of to-day. The admission 
[ of this red Deputy may be cited by this Church as 
an evidence that we intend to do justice and repair 
; the wrongs of these much injured aborigines. 

The PRESIDENT. I think it quite proper that 
i this Indian Deputy should be allowed by the House 
I to make some acknowledgment of the courtesy 
which has been extended to him in the remarks 
which you have heard, but it requires a motion to 
that effect. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I make the mo- 
tion that he be allowed the privilege. 
The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The Deputy will present him- 
self before the House. 
Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Rev. Mr. Hin- 
j man will translate for him. 

i Mr. HENRY WHIPPLE WAUMDIXUN addressed 
i the House in liis native tongue (his words being trans- 
1 lated by Rev. S. D. Hinman sentence by sentence). 
I When I heard the woi-ds the Church brought to us in 
, our far-off land, although I heard them for several 
: years, I never expected to be a member of such an 
j assembly as this. It seems to me that the Great 
I Spirit has spoken to me of his own will, not of my 
I desire, and I have been sent here as a member of 
i this body to represent our Indian people, and I am 
i very thanMul foi- it. 

i In our country we are very poor, and we never 
I thought that a great Church like this would turn 
1 and look upon us ; and even after we had heard the 
i words that the Church brought us, we never 
i thought that we would be honored and lifted up to 
j be made members of an assembly like this. 

My friends, I was weak and had fallen down, but 
your aid lifted me up and caused me to rise. To-day 
I know that to be true in my heart. 
When I return home and tell my people how I 
I have been received here, and what I have heard, 
! and what I have seen, they will be all very glad, 
and you will make the whole Church among the 
Indian people much pi'ouder for the kind words 
you have given me to-day. 

My friends, I have walked for years in darkness, 
without any light, but through the Gospel which 
has been given to you, which you have given to us, 
I have begun to see the light, and now it seems that 
i God has made me to walk in high places, and to-day I 
i have a very great joy. I am very thankful. 
I This is all I have to say. My friends, I shake 
: hands with all of you. 

I COMMITTEE ON HYMNAL. 

! The following message (No. 7) was received from 
I the House of Bishops : 

j "The House of Bishops informs the House of 
j Deputies that it has adopted the following resolu- 
tion: 

I " Resolved, That this House does not concur in 
the resolution of the House of Deputies commun- 

\ icated to it in Message No. 5 from that House 
relative to the appointment of a special committee 

; on the Hymnal, for the reason that the report of 



68 



the Joint Committee of the last General Conven- 
tion upon the Hymnal has not yet been laid before 
the Convention." 

DROPPED CANONS. 

The following message (No. 8) was received from 
the House of Bishops : 

"The House of Bishops informs the House of 
Deputies that it has adopted the following resolu- 
tion : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring). That Canons 8 and 9 of Title 1 of 
the Digest of 1868 be printed in the Digest ; and, 
further, that Canon 8 of Title 1 of 1868 be numbered 
Canon 12 of Title 1 ; that Canon 9 of Title 1 of 1868 
be numbered Canon 11 of Title 1 ; and that the re- 
maining Canons of Title 1 be numbered in accord- 
ance with these provisions. " 

MISSIONARY JURISDICTIONS STANDING COMMITTEES. 

Message No. 9, from the House of Bishops, an- 
nounced the passage by that House of the following- 
resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies concurring), That Clause 6 of Section 7 of 
Canon 13, Title 7, be amended, to read as follows : 

"(6) Every such Bishop shall yearly appoint two 

gresbj^ters and two laymen, communicants of this 
hurch, resident within his missionary jurisdiction, 
to perform the duties of a standing committee for 
such jurisdiction, who shall continue in office till 
their successors be appomted. Provided, That no 
standing committee constituted under this section 
shall have power to give or refuse assent to the con- 
secration of a Bishop. " 

DIVISION OF MICHIGAN. 

Message No. 10, from the House of Bishops, in- 
formed the House of Deputies that it had adopted 
the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring). That this Convention hereby con- 
sents to and ratifies the formation of a new Diocese 
within the limits of the Diocese of Michigan, to be 
composed of the counties of Branch, St. Joseph, 
Cass, Berrien, Van Buren, Kalamazoo, Calhoun, 
Eaton, Barry, Ottawa, Kent, Allegan, Ionia, Mont- 
calm, Muskegon, Oceano, Newaygo, Meconta, Isa- 
bella, Clare, Osceola, Lake, Mason, Manistee, IV ex- 
ford, Missaukee, Kalcaska, Grand Traverse, Ben- 
zie, Leelenaw, Antrim, Chartevoise, and Emmett. 

NEW DIOCESE IN OHIO. 

Message No. 11, from the House of Bishops, an- 
nounced the passage of the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring). That this Convention hereby con- 
sents to and ratifies the formation of a new Diocese 
within the limits of the Diocese of Ohio, to be com- 
posed of that portion of the present Diocese lying 
south of a line running along the south line of Mer- 
cer, Shelby, Logan, Union, Marion, Morrow, Knox, 
Coshocton, Tuscarora, Harrison, and Jefferson 
Counties. " 

NEW DIOCESE IN MICHIGAN. 

Mr. PEIRCE, of Michigan. Mr. President, as 
pertinent to Message No. 10 from the House of 
Bishops and germane to the subject, I hold in my 
hand some papers pertaining to the organization of 
a new diocese in Michigan, together with a resolu- 
tion, which I ask to have acted on, in order that the 
matter may be forwarded with all due despatch : 

"Resolved, That Message No. 10, of the House of 
Bishops, just received, together with the official 
consent of the Bishop of Michigan to a division of 
said Diocese, the official action of the Michigan 
Diocesan Convention with reference thereto, a list 
of presbyters in the proposed new Diocese, the 



I number of presbyters in the old Diocese, a list of 
; self-supporting parishes, the exact boundaries of the 

new Diocese, and the statements of the provisions 
j made for the Episcopal fund, now here presented to 
I this Convention, be referred to the Committee on 
' the Admission of New Dioceses. " 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on 

the Admission of New Dioceses. 

COMMITTEE SERVICE. 

The PRESIDENT. In reference to the Commit- 
tee on the Admission of New Dioceses, the Lay 
Deputy from New York [Mr, Ruggles], who is on 
the Committee, desires to resign his place. Will the 
House permit him to resign ? 

No objection being made, Mr. Ruggles was ex- 
cused from service, and Mr. George W. Jackson, of 
Texas, was appointed upon the Committee in place 
J of Mr. Ruggles. 

i Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Will the President 

please state the reason of my resignation ? 
; The PRESIDENT. The reason was that Mr. 
I Ruggles had too much to do on other Committees to 
i attend to this. 

DECEASED MEMBERS. 

Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey. On 
\ the part of the Chairman of the Committee on Me- 
I morials of Deceased Members, I will take this op- 
portunity to request that if there are any resolu- 
I tions, or any information or tributes of respect to 
I former members of this Convention, deceased since 
I the last General Convention, gentlemen would be 
! pleased to hand them to the Chaii'man of the Commit- 
\ tee. Rev. Dr. Burgess, or to-day, in his absence, to me 
or any other member of the Committee. The object 
! of this Committee, as we understand, was to save 
i time, to digest any resolutions that might be offered 
I or information presented, and also to prevent any 
j omissions in the necrology of this body. " 

I CANONS AS TO PUBLIC WORSHIP. 

I Rev. Mr. HARRIS, of Louisiana. I have here a 
; preamble and resolution, which I desire to be re- 
: ferred to the Committee on Canons : 

"Whereas, The law of this Church is threefold, 
i embraced, fii-st, in its Constitution, which is its or- 
1 ganic law ; second, in the Book of Common Prayer, 
I which contains its ritual law ; and third, in its 
j Canons, which regulate and determine such matters 
: as are not provided for in the organic and ritual 
I law aforementioned ; and whereas the sole law 
governing the public worship of this Charch, or, in 
j other words, its sole ritual law, is contained 
j in the Book of Common Prayer, and particu- 
j larly in the Rubrics of the same ; and whereas, any 
j Canon of Ritual prescribing or enacting what may or 
may not be done in the performance of public wor- 
ship would constitute a part of the law governing 
the public worship of this Church, and would there- 
fore necessarilj^ be in effect an alteration or addi- 
tion to the Church's ritual law contained in the 
Book of Common Prayer ; and whereas, the Consti- 
tution of this Church provides that no such altera- 
tion or addition shall be made except in the manner 
I therein prescribed. Therefore, 
j "Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be in- 
i structed to consider and report whether any Canon 
1 prescribing what may or may not be done in the 
I performance of public worship can be enacted by 
this Convention without violating the spirit, at 
least, of the Constitution, Article VIII. of which pro- 
vides that no alteration or addition shall be made in 
the Book of Common Prayer or other offices of the 
Church, or the Articles of Religion, unless the same 
shall be proposed in one Convention and by a re- 
solve thereof made known to the Convention of 
every Diocese, and adopted at a subsequent General 
' Convention," 



The preamble and resolution, I believe, explain 
themselves. I have no desire to make any remarks 
conceiTiing them, but will ask that they be read by 
the Secretai-y, and then referred to the Committee 
on Canons. 

The preamble and resolution were read and re- 
fen-ed to the Committee on Canons. 

THE BAPTISMAL SERVICE. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I hold in 
my hand a petition of five hundred and one clergy- 
men of the Church asking for a modification of two 
Rubrics in the Service for the Baptism of Infants— 
the alteration of the word "shall " after " ma 5^ in 
one case, and the alteration of a Rubric so as to allow 
of an alternate prayer in another case. I move the 
reference of this petition to the Committee on Can- 
ons. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Ought it not 
to go to the Committee on the Prayer-Book i 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I say the 
Committee on Canons, not the Committee on the 
Prayer-Book ; for this is a question of law ; it is 
not a question touching the genuineness of the text 
at all. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the mo- 
tion to refer the petition to the Committee on 
Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

USE OF THE PRAYER-BOOK. 

The Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. It wiU be 
remembered by some of the Deputies who were 
members of this House at the last General Conven- 
tion, that this body passed a Canon entitled •' Can- 
on 20, Of the Use of the Book of Common Prayer," 
designed to afford the clei'gy* of the Church the 
liberty of using under certain circumstances short- 
ened forms of prayers. This Canon, however, the 
House of Bishops did not concur in, and the matter 
was not brought up again in this body at its last 
session. Since that time, however, the Chmx-h of 
England has acted upon this subject. The Convoca- 
tions of Canterbury'and Yoi-k have passed a law au- 
thorizing the clergy imder certain circumstances to 
use shortened services, and the Imperial Parliament 
of Great Britain has given its sanction to this action 
of the Convocations; and therefore there is now in 
England full hberty under certain prescribed cir- 
cumstances for using shortened services. Some 
months ago, the Rev. Dr. Haight, who took great 
interest in the matter, prepared a proposed Canon 
on this same subject, and sent copies of it to some 
of his intimate friends whom he supposed to be 
interested in liturgical subjects. In his absence, and 
for him, I beg leave to present a proposed Canon on 
the use of the Book of Common Prayer, and to 
move that it be referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

The Secretary read the proposed Canon, as fol- 
lows : 

Canon 20. Of the Use of the Book of Common 
Prayer. 

Sec. I. Every minister shall, on all occasions of 
public worship, use the Book of Common Prayer as 
the same is or may be established by the authority 
of the General Convention of this Church ; and this 
rule shaU be understood to prohibit all additions to, 
and omissions from, the prescribed order of said 
Book, except in the cases prescribed by Section 14 
of Canon 13, Title L, and also except in so far as is 
hereafter in this Canon otherwise provided. 

Sec. II. On any days other than Sunday, Christ- 
mas Day, Ash-Wednesday, Good-Friday, or Ascen- 
sion Day, in lieu of the order for Morning Prayer or 
for Evening Prayer, as set forth in Book of Com- 
mon Prayer, there be used a shortened form taken 
from such order. 



Sec. III.— [1.] The shortened form of Morning 
Prayer shall consist of — 

One or more o!: the Sentences ; 

The General Confession ; 

The Declaration of Absolution ; 

The Lord's Prayer, with the versicles following ; 

One or more of the Psalms for the Day (or of the 
Selected Psalms) ; 

One of the ApjDointed Lessons ; 

The Te Deum, or Benedicite, or Jubilate, or Bene- 
dictus ; 

The Apostles' (orNicene) Creed, with the versicles 
following ; 

The CoUect for the Day ; 

The Collects for Peace and for Grace ; 

The Prayer of St. Chrysostom ; 

" The Grace of our Lord," etc. 

[2.] On Avednesdays and Fridays — not being 
Christmas Day, Ash-\Yednesday, or Good-Friday — 
the Litany may be read after the Collect for Grace 
in the shortened form, or it may be read on those 
days in lieu of this shortened form. 

[3.] The shortened form of Evening Prayer shall 
consist in like manner of — 

One or more of the Sentences ; 

The General Confession ; 

The Declaration of Absolution ; 

The Lord's Prayer, with the versicles following ; 

One or more of the Psalms for the Day (or of the 
Selected Psalms) ; 

The Cantate, or Bonum Est, or Deus Misereatur, 
or Benedic Anima Mea ; 

The Apostles' (or Nicene) Creed, with the versicles 
following ; 

The Collect for the Day; 

The Collects for Peace and Aid against Perils ; 

The Prayer of St. Chrysostom ; 

"The Grace of our Lord," etc. 

Sec. IV. — [1.] When in any church there have 
been, or during the day are to be used, the Order 
for Morning Prayer and for Evening Prayer, or the 
Shortened Forms of the same as herein ' provided, 
for days when such may be employed, with the 
Litany on Simdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and 
on Sundays and Holy Days such part, at least, of 
the Holy Communion Office as is required to be 
read when there is no Communion, then may be 
said, as an additional seraice, at any hour of the 
day. 

The Litany ; 

Or, an additional form consisting of. 

The Lord's Prayer, with the versicles following ; 

A Psalm from the Psalter ; 

A Lesson from Holy Scriptm*e ; 

One of the Canticles from the Book of Common 
Prayer ; or, an anthem from Holy Scripture ; 

The Apostles' (or Nicene) Creed, with the versicles 
following ; 

The Collects for Peace and Grace, from the Order, 
for Morning Prayer, if in the morning. 

The Collects for Peace and for Aid against Perils, 
from the Order for Evening Prayer, if in the even- 
ing. 

A Collect or Collects from the Book of Common 
Prayer ; 

"The Grace of our Lord," etc. 

[2.] The Minister using such Shortened Forms as 
in this Canon is provided may, at his discretion, 
insert in its proper place any portion of the Order 
for Morning Prayer, or for Evening Prayer, herein 
authoiized to be omitted : and in like manner with 
the Additional Form. 

[3.] The Order for Morning Praj^er, the Litany, 
and the Order for the Holy Communion may be 
used together, or in varying" order, as separate ser- 
vices; or the Litany may be said after the Prayer 
for the President of the "United States in the Or^er 
for Evening Prayer, or after the Collect for Aid 



agaiiist Perils, in the shortened form of the same, in 
lieu of or in addition to its use with the Morning 
Prayer. 

[4,] In the shortened form of Morning Prayer, or 
of Evening Prayer, the several portions into which 
Psalm cxix. is divided shall each, for the purposes 
of this Canon, be deemed to be a separate Psalm. 

Sec. V. — [1 .] A sermon or lectiu-e may be preached 
without being jof necessity preceded by the Order of 
Morning Prayer, or for Evening Prayer, or by any 
of the shortened or additional forms provided in 
this Canon ; Provided, that there be first said a Col- 
lect or Collects from the Book of Common Prayer. 

[2.] At mission services, missionary meetings, and 
the like, other forms of service, taken from the Book 
of Common Prayer, may be used, subject to the ap- 
proval of the Bishop of the Diocese in which such 
service is held. 

Rev. Dr. BEERS, of Albany. I move, at this 
stage, in connection with the reference of that meas- 
ure to the Committee, that there be printed 500 copies 
for the use of this House. 

The PRESIDENT. I suppose that is proper. 

Rev. Dr. CAD Y, of New York. One more word of 
explanation. This proposed service is substantially, 
with the very slightest alteration, the one which has 
become a law in the Church of England, after pass- 
ing through the Convocations of Canterbury and 
York. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I am in ac- 
cord with what has been said ; but, as I understand, 
it is proposed to refer that to the Committee on 
Canons. Is that the motion ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. We have now 
a Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
rise to a point of order. The question of reference 
is not debatable. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I am not de- 
bating it. We have a Committee on Amendments to 
the Constitution. It strikes me that, before we refer 
to the Committee on Canons the expediency of 
adopting such a Canon as this, we should refer it to 
the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, 
to report to us whether we can act by Canon in di- 
recting what omissions shall be made out of the 
Prayer-Book in the usual services of the day. I 
therefore move as an amendment that it be referred 
to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitu- 
tion. I have had handed to me by a gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Bennett] a resolution drawn up 
by him on the very subject : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Constitu- 
tion be directed to enquire and report whether the 
eighth article of the Constitution does not prohibit 
any alterations of the Book of Connnon Prayer, 
except in the mode therein prescribed, and whether 
a short or different form of prayer than those, laid 
down can be authorized by a mere Canon of this 
Church." 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to refer the proposed Canon to the Committee on 
Canons. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. But the amendment is to 
transfer it to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I 
would submit that the second motion wiU be in or- 
der immediately after we have acted on the previ- 
ous motion. The previous motion was to refer the 
Canon proposed by the Deputy from New York to 
the Committee on Canons. That is the motion be- 
fore the House. After we have adopted that, then 
this resolution wiU be in order referring the subject 
of the resolution to another committee. 

The PRESIDENT. I understand Rev. Dr. Cady, 
of New York, to offer a proposed Canon to the House, 



and move that it be referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. Yes, sir. 
The PRESIDENT. Then Mr. Livingston proposed 
: to amend that motion by referring the subject to the 
i Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. 
I Rev. Dr. LE WIN, of Maryland. We have already 
; had experience which shows that there is very great 
difficulty in having these two committees, a Com- 
; mittee on the Constitution and a Committee on 
; Canons sitting separately. I simply suggest 
! whether a great deal of this diflaculty might not be 
removed by a change in the rule, so that the two 
committees may sit together as a joint Committee 
on Constitution and Canons. I do not make a 
i motion ; I only make a suggestion. 
\ The PRESIDENT. As I understand the rule of 
] the House m regard to these matters, the motion to 
i amend by referring the proposed Canon to the Com- 
] mittee on Amendments to the Constitution is now 
j the question before the House. The resolution of 
1 Mr. Livingston cannot come in as an amendment. 
I Rev. Dr. BEERS, of Albany. May I suggest 
I whether it would be proper to have a document 
I having mixed character and relations to the work of 
I both these committees, referred to both committees. 
I That would simplify the whole matter. Can we re- 
; f er the same paper "to two committees ? If we can, 
! I move an amendment to the motion to refer the 
I proposed Canon to the Committees on Canons and 
I the Constitution. 

The PRESIDENT. That is a new question, and 
I the Chair would like to be informed upon it by 

some experienced parliamentarians. 
, Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. On behalf of the 
I Committee on Amendments. I suggest that it ought 
! to go to the Committee on tne Prayer-Book. 
i Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. It is evident that 
I both these subjects-matter should go first to the 
1 Committee on the Constitution, and we know that 
\ we shall have a great many other questions of 
! the same sort. I therefore move that, whenever the 
! Committees on Constitution and Canons choose, in 
their discretion they may sit as a Joint Committee. 
; It will save us a great deal of trouble and much 
■ time. I offer that proposition as germane to the 
' subject before us. 

The PRESIDENT. It wiU not be in order until 
we dispose of this matter. 
1 Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. Then I move as an 
amendment that the subjects-matter be referred 
to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitu- 
tion. 

i Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I think 
j the proposed Canon had better be referred to the 
Committee on Canons as the appropriate reference, 
and the resolution of enquiry simply whether 
' a constitutional change is necessary may be re- 
ferred to the other Committee. The Committee on 
I the Constitution will pursue that enquiry of course 
j immediately and report to the House, and if the re- 
I port is in favor of canonical action, then the other 
I Committee can go on with its work. 
I Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Mr. President, I 
desire to say that if any of those matters be referred 
I to the Committee on Canons, and if it discovers 
! that the subject should go to the Committee on 
j Amendments to the Constitution, it will, as it has 
already done during this session of the 
j Convention, ask to be relieved from the considera- 
I tion of the subject, and that it be referred to the 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. I 
say this on behalf of the Committee on Canons. 

A question was asked by the Chair a moment ago 
as to whether the identical same proposition coiUd 
be moved by a reference to the Committee on Can- 
! ons, and afterwards by a reference to the Committee 
: on Amendments to the Constitution. I will suggest, 



71 



in answer to the enquiry of the Chair, that accord- 
ing to the opinion I can' give, that would be an un- 
heard-of proceeding. The same subject must go to 
the one Committee or the other. 

The PRESIDENT. The question then is on the 
amendment to refer the proposed Canon to the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution. 

The amendment was not agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the 
original motion to refer the proposed Canon to the 
Committee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

MISSIONARY JURISDICTIONS. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas, submitted the fol- 
lowing resolution, which was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution : 

" Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee 
on Constitutional Amendments to consider and re- 
port to this Convention whether any constitutional 
amendment is necessary to empower the General 
Convention of this Church to set off missionary ter- 
ritory from the territory of a Diocese, at the request 
of said Diocese, duly made known.'' 

ALTERATION OF BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York, submitted the 
following resolution, which was referred to the 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Constitu- 
tion be directed to enquire and report whether the 
eighth article of the Constitution does not prohibit 
any -alteration of the Book of Common Prayer, ex- 
cept in the mode therein prescribed, and whether a 
short or different form of prayer than those laid 
down can be authorized bv a mere Canon of this 
Church." 

LAMBETH CONFERENCE. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I wish to 
offer the following preamble and resolutions : 

" Whereas, In the address of the Lord Bishop of 
Lichfield, made to this House on the occasion of his 
formal presentation on the 9th inst. , as well as in 
the addresses of the Most Rev. Metropolitan of Can- 
ada and the Bishops of Kingston and Quebec on 
the same occasion, reference was made to the prob- 
able reassembling of the Lambeth Conference at an 
early date, including an intimation that an expres- 
sion' of the sentiments of this Church upon the sub- 
ject might facilitate the convening of a second ses- 
sion of this Conference. Therefore, 

"Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies respectfully submit for the consideration 
of the House of Bishops its cordial approbation in 
any measure that may be proposed by the Church 
of England for the reassembling of the Lambeth 
Conference in a second session." 

" Resolved, That the foregoing preamble and res- 
olution be communicated to the House of Bishops 
as a message from the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies." 

I will merely say, Mr. President, that this 

groposition is offered as one of courtesy, 
ome expression of sentiment in tliis re- 
gard has been invited by the Bishop of 
Lichfield as well as by the Canadian deputation : 
and I have at the request of a number of the Bish- 
ops prepared the resolution and offered it, regarding 
it as only one of courtesy. It commits us to nothing. 
It is only a polite response to their suggestion ; and, 
of course, it is merely paving the way for the exten- 
sion of an invitation to this Church which they de- 
sire to extend if they only know that it will be 
agreeably received. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I do not know that 
I shall really object to the resolution, but in order 
that the House may have time under its rules to i 



' consider it, I tender my objection now, so that it 
may lie over and come up on the Calendar of busi- 
ness to-morrow. 

The PRESIDENT. The time for entering upon 
the Calendar, which is the order of the day, has 
passed, and no other business can be entertained 
until that is disposed of without a vote of two-thirds 
of the House. I will mention to the House, how- 
ever, that the only thing upon the Calendar is one 
which the House on Saturday informally determined 
should not be taken up to-day. We can now take it 
up and pass it over, or make any disposition of it 
that is deemed proper. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I will 
only say that this matter which I have presented 
, requires a little speed, inasmuch as those to whom 
• reference is made in the resolution are about leaving, 
: and the message has to go to the House of Bishops. 
' The Canadian Metropolitan leaves to-morrow, and 
the Lord Bishop of Lichfield leaves on Wednesday. 
: The matter ought to be attended to at once. 

BISHOPS-ELECT OF ILLINOIS ANT) WISCONSIN. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will state the 
business on the Calendar. 

The SECRETARY. The first business on the 
Calendar is the resolutions reported by the Com- 
mittee on the Consecration of Bishops^ respecting 
the signing of the testimonials of the Bishops-elect of 
Wisconsin and Illinois. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Mr. President, pursuant to the notice which I gave 
on Saturday, I now move that this subject be made 
the special order of business to-morrow morning 
immediately after Divine service. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Does not that re- 
quire a two-thirds vote i It is varying the order of 
the day. 
The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. 

I Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. It comes in before 

I the reading of the minutes, even. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move to amend 
by fixing Wednesday at eleven o'clock. 
Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. My 

' motion was that it be made the special order of 

' business to-morrow morning, immediately after 
Divine services. The object, and the only object, of 

[ the proposition is this : 1 have been informed 
bv many of my friends that the Con- 

i vention "is holding its sessions at what 

I is now considered quite low down iji 
the city, and at a great distance from the houses of 
those who visit it ; and it would be desirable for 

i them to know, through the morning papers, at what 
time this House is about to sit with closed doors, so 
that they will not have occasion to come at so early 
an hour." Further, those who do come here to at- 
tend Divine service will then retire from the House 
when Divine service is through, and when the Con- 
vention meets by itself after that no other persons 
will be admitted. 

The object of my motion will not be accomplished 
if we enter at all upon the appropriate business of 
the Convention by reading the minutes in the pres- 
ence of an audience here, because then it will be 
necessary after the reading of the minutes for us to 
wait until the persons in attendance shall retire. It 
was to avoid that very thing that I made the motion, 
so that all who retire "from the house will retire at the 
close of Divine service, and we may enter upon our 
business at once. It may well be "that then it may 
be considered desirable to take up the minutes first ; 
but I do not wish that we shall enter upon the busi- 
ness of the Convention proper after Divine sei-vice 
with the house full of people, and then at the close 
of the reading of the minutes Stop to clear them 
from the house. It was just that circumstance that 
I wished to avoid. 



72 



As to the question whether this requires a two- ] 
thirds vote, let me say a single word. A motion to i 
make a thing a special order for a given time is one 
of those privileged motions named in our rules, as a 
motion to postpone to a time certain, and it is a 
motion that can always be made when a question is 
pending. A motion to postpone to a time certain is 
a motion to make a thing a special order for that | 
time in effect ; and a motion to make a thing a i 
special order when it comes up for consideration, I ; 
believe, is uniformly acted upon by all parliament- ' 
ary bodies by the simple vote of a majority of the | 
House. 1 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Mr. President, not- i 
withstanding that motion may be made at any time, ] 
still if it varies the orders of the day it requires a j 
A'ote of two-thirds to carry it ; and npw upon pi'iu- | 
ciple I hope that it will not be done. During this Con- I 
vention and during the Conventions that will follow, j 
there will be many occasions, I have no doubt many | 
in this Convention, when this going into secret ses- | 
sion must talce place. We are a deliberative body, I 
v and we are to act for own convenience ; we are here | 
to carry on the work of the Church as expeditiously ; 
as we can ; and if we attempt to regard the con- | 
venience of the galleries and of the visitors, from j 
time to time, rather than our own ; if we attempt I 
to say through the public papers, "to-day, and I 
to-morrow, and next day," over this man, that, | 
and the other, ''on a certain day we will go into a i 
certain hearing, and the public may not come," | 
we are incommoding ourselves during the whole | 
Convention — we are interrupting the wheels of our j 
business in a way that we ought not for a I 
moment to do. We have adopted the rule. | 
I do not know that the rule is wise, j 
but it is our rule, and let the public take notice of | 
the fact, and govern themselves according to our | 
rule and our convenience. When it is convenient to : 
us to go into secret session, let us act as though the | 
galleries had not a person in them, and the public j 
was not known. We have taken this matter in our I 
hands contrary to the opinions of the public, I am ! 
sure, and now we cannot — ! 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I rise to a point j 
of order. I call attention to the eighth rule of ! 
order : ; 

" The House shall proceed to the order of the day j 
at twelve o'clock precisely, unless dispensed with by ! 
a vote of two-thirds of all the members present." 

I submit that a motion to that effect must be made I 
in order that the gentleman may be in order in his ; 
1*01X1 9;rks I 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I submit that I am ' 
right. 

The PRESIDEI^T. I think we are upon the or- 
der of the day now, and this is a motion made in 
reference to it. It is not proposed to dispense with | 
any rule of order, but we are proceeding under that : 
rule of order. j 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of I^ew York. As I under- j 
stand it, the matter before the Convention at twelve ! 
o'clock precisely was the report of the Committee j 
on the Consecration of Bishops. i 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, and that is before the [ 
House now. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Now, in order ! 
that we may discuss any other subject whatever, i 
it must first be moved that the rule of order be dis- : 
peiised with. ; 

The PRESIDENT. We are discussing that point \ 
now. ! 

The Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. As I un- ! 
derstand, we are discussing a motion to postpone j 
it until to-morrow, or to make it a special order I 
for to-morrow. My point is that, in order to j 
bring in sach a motion as that, you must first dis- 
pense with the rule of order. i 



The Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. This is in 
effect a motion to do that very thing. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not think so. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
A single word on the question of order. A thing is 
regularlj^ called up on the Calendar, and the mis- 
take of the gentleman is that we are necessarily 
bound to press it or reject it at that time. It simply 
comes before the House, and then any motion al- 
lowed by the ' rules may be made upon it, and 
those motions are, a motion to amend, motion 
to commit, a motion to postpone indefi- 
nitely, a motion to postpone to a day 
certain ; and each of those motions has 
precedence in the order named. This is one of those 
motions, being a motion to postpone to a time 
certain. We are not bound to pass it or reject it 
when it is reached on the Calendar ; but we may 
make such disposition of it as the majority of the 
HonsG plstisG 

The PRESIDENT. I have determined that the 
gentleman's motion is in order, but there has been a 
motion to amend that by fixing Wednesday morn- 
ing instead of Tuesday. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
accept the amendment. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I am speaking in 
regard to the matter before the House, which I be- 
lieve is the matter for us now to consider once for 
all ; are we in this instance to set the precedent of 
conforming our actions to the convenience of the 
the public or to our own convenience ? I hope that 
we shall never set any day certain to go into secret 
session on any business, especially when that busi- 
ness is now the general order of the day, for the 
purpose of allowing people to stay away from 
Divine service ; but that we go into the considera- 
ation of this matter whenever it arises. 

Mr. BALDWIN, of Michigan. I apprehend that 
we cannot set aside one of the most important rules 
of this House in the summary manner proposed by 
the Deputy from Western New York. Rule 5 reads 
as follows : 

" The daily order of business shall be as follows : 
" I.— Reading the Minutes. 
" II.— Communications from the President. 
"III.— Reports from Standing Committees, in the 
following order : 

"1. On elections," etc. 

The resolution of the honorable Deputy from 
Western New York proposes summarily that the 
order of the day for to-day at twelve o'clock shall 
be made the order of the day to-morrow before pro- 
ceeding with the regular order of business as pro- 
vided bv this rule. I apprehend that the only way 
in which that could be accomplished would be by a 
resolution suspending the fifth rule of order, which 
requires a two-thirds vote. What the gentleman 
has said in regard to how questions shall be put, 
presupposes that the daily order of business shall 
have been accomplished. When the daily 
order of business has been accomplished, 
then a resolution to make a matter a special 
order for a given time is in order ; but I ap- 
prehend that we cannot, until the daily order of 
business has been completed, take up any other 
question without suspending the fifth rule of order. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. It seems to me that 
there can be no sort of difficulty in a proper under- 
standing of this question if Rules of Order No. 6 and 
No. 7 are read : 

" 6. The Secretary shall keep a Calendar of busi- 
ness, on which reports from committees, resolutions 
which lie over, and other matters undisposed of 
shall be placed in the order in which they are pre- 
sented. 

"7. At twelve o'clock, unless there be an order of 



73 



the clay, or as soon thereafter as the order of the 
day shall be disposed of, the business on the Calen- 
dar " — 

This businesg- — 
— ''shall be taken up and disposed of, in the order 
in which it stands thereon ; and a vote of two-thirds 
of the membei-s present shall be requii'ed to take up 
any matter out of its ox-der on the Calendar." 

Now, this business stands on the Calendar as the 
order for to-day. It is called up pursuant to that 
order. The question is now on a motion to post- 
pone its consideration ; that is to say, that the House 
will not consider it in the order in which the rule 
provides that it "shall be considered. That motion is 
perfectly in order, but it requires a two-thirds vote 
in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7. It is 
perfectly competent for tlie House to say, if it has 
the disposition so to say, that Vv-e will not consider 
the special order now before the House until to- 
mori-ow, or the next day, or any other day ; but in 
order to do so it requii^es a two-thirds vote under 
your rule. 

I fully concur with the sentiments expressed by 
the Clerical Deputy from Texas in reference to this 
matter. I beheve that the House should consider 
its business in the order that it has provided for by 
its rules. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I should hke 
to ask a queslrion. As I apprehend the rules of 
order, the Deputy from Louisiana has made a mis- 
take. If I understand the decision, the question 
now before us is the very resolution proposed by 
the CoHunittee on the Consecration of Bishops. 
Tliat is the business now before the House. What 
is the rule about that ? 

' ' When a question is under consideration " — 

The question under consideration being now these 
very resolutions of the Committee on the Consecra- 
tion of Bishops — 
— "no motion shall be received."' 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I rise to a question 
of order. I understand that the President has al- 
ready decided that the motion to postpone imtil 
Wedbaesday is in order. 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Vii^ginia. I respectfuUy sub- 
mit that the Chair ought not to allow such a ques- 
tion to be again debated here. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I did not un- 
derstand that to be the ruling of the Chaii', or I 
would not have said a word. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virgmia. The Chair has prop- 
erly so decided. 

The PRESIDENT. There is one question of 
doubt remaining in my mind, and that is, whether 
the motion as made to supersede the regular order of 
business before twelve o'clock requires a two-thirds 
vote, and I would ask the Deputy from Virginia to 
enlighten the mind of the Chair on that jDoint. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. My own opinion 
about that is that the rule requiring the order of 
the day to come up at twelve o'clock presupposes 
tiie regular transaction of the business of the House 
up to that time, and I respectfully suggest to the 
gentleman from Western New York to content 
himself with a motion to make this the order of the 
day for Wednesday. It is a very little matter for 
us to consider about getting people out of the House 
after the rehgious services are over, and it does in- 
volve a vast deal of confusion if the special order of 
the day comes in to overslaugh everything in the 
regular order of business of the House. 

The PRESIDENT. I hope the gentleman from 
Western New York wiU accept that suggestion. 
There wiU be but httle time lost by it, for it will be 
near twelve o'clock before we get to work on Wed- 
nesday. 

Mr.jJNIONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 



am not pertinacious in this matter, my object being- 
only to promote the convenience of the body as 
well as of those outside ; but I must say a word. I 
have just enquired of my distinguished friend on 
the left (Mr. Stevenson) as to the practice of the 
Senate. I know the practice of the deliberative 
bodies of which I have been a, member has 
been that, when a matter is before tho 
House in its regular order for consideration, its 
consideration can be fixed for any f titurc time by a 
I majority vote. We are now acting under the order 
of the day. We have reached twelve o'clock. 
We are still within that rule. We have taken up on 
the Calendar the matter of signing the testimonials 
of the Bishops. "V\''e are_ acting so far according to 
the order of the day. 'biov/, I submit that the rule 
of parliamentary bodies is that that daily rule oL 
order prescribed by the niles is always subject to a 
special order made on any day before that. I 
could not interfere with the regular or- 
der of the day, by proposing a special order to 
overrule it. That it was held on Saturday could not 
be done ; but when on a preceding day, under the 
regular order of business, this House has fixed a 
special order for the opening of the House on a par- 
ticidar day, it does on that day ta.ke precedence of 
the common daily order. That is tho daily practice 
of the Senate and the daily practice of all other par- 
liamentary bodies. It is not suspending any ride ; 
it is simply doing under the rules of the body 
what we have a right to do, and what the 
very rule as to calling the Calendar 
at twelve o'clock contemplates, and whether we 
have made a special order for twelve o'clock, or we 
have made a special order for ten o'clock, or haii- 
past ten, makes no difference ; the rule only settles 
that at that particular hour the Calendar shall have 
precedence if there be no special order. This may 
be very important when the daily order of business 
presents many matters for consideration. This 
House, for its own convenience, may say, " We 
should like to take this subject up to-morrow at 
eleven o'clock," or "a,t three o'clock ; " and if we 
have not tha,t power we cannot fix any matter for 
consideration at a time certain under om- imles. I 
beg the gentleman from Virginia to reconsider the 
opinion he has expressed. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I did not say the 
House had not the power, but that the House ought 
not to exercise any such power. 

Mr. MOITTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
was not talking about what it was expedient to do. 
I understood the Chair to enquire of the very distin- 
guished and learned gentleman from Virginia what 
the rale of law was, whether we could make a special 
order to-day by a majority vote which would super- 
sede the common order of business for to-morrow, 
and I suppose he answered the question by saying 
that we coidd not. K the gentleman is of the con- 
trary opinion, that we can legallj'-, by a special or- 
der made to-day by a majority vote, supersede the 
regular daily order of to-morrow morning, I wish 
he would say so. 
I Now, sir, I wiU yield to the convenience of the 
I House. When, at the suggestion of others, I agreed 
to Wednesday morning, it was assented to aU 
around, I thought, that we should enter on this bus- 
iness with closed doors immediately on our meeting, 
rather than meet with open doors and then turn 
people out. I insist on my motion, if it be in ordei-. 
that this business be made the special order for 
Wednesday morning, immediately after Divine 

^ Rev. ' Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
move as an amendment that the House proceed 
forthwith to the discussion of the testimonials as 
presented. 

i Mr. MONTGOMERY, of We;tem New York. I 



74 



raise the point of order that that will be the effect 1 
of voting down this motion. j 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I should like to have one I 
good reason sta,ted why we should postpone consid- I 
oration until Wednesday. The Committee reported I 
on Saturday last. I have not heai d a reason stated , 
for i^ostponing, and I hope the House will vote down ; 
the motion. i 

Rev. Dr. CORBETT, of Illinois. I wish to state \ 
that there is one very strong i-eason for the pro- | 
posed postponement, which 1 think will have due | 
v/eight with this House— ! 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of . Central Pemisyivania. I j 
rise to a point of order. I wish to know whether | 
my motion to proceed forth-^vlth is before the ! 
House ? 

The PRESIDENT. I think not. 

Rev. Dr. CORBETT, of Illinois. The statement \ 
which I wish to make is simply this. There are | 
now on the way to this House, from the Diocese of ! 
Illinois, certain papers and memorials connected | 
.vith the proposed con&mation of Dr. Seymour's j 
election, which are prepared to state certain facts 
about that election, the consideration of which will, { 
it seems to me, form a very necessary element in | 
the discussion of the question by the House. I hold | 
in my hand a telegram, and also a letter, statmg j 
the fact that these papers are now on the v/ay I 
to New York, and I respectfully ask that | 
this fact be borne i3a mind by the j 
House as offering a very important reason ! 
for postponement. These papers may be here to- \ 
morrow* morning ; they may not be here imtil vv^ed- I 
i\esday morning ; but at any rate the very fact of I 
theii' bemg on their way here is a reason sufficient, \ 
1 think, for postponement. I 

Mr. WELSH, of _ Pennsylvania. What is the : 
question before the House, Mr. President ? i 

The PRESIDENT. Postponing until Wednesday I 
morning immediately after Divine service the coii- | 
sideration of the two reports of the Committee on j 
the Consecration of Bishops. i 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Allow me to ask 
the last speaker, through you, Mr. President, whether j 
that time will be agreeable to him, or whether he 
asks a further delay ? | 

Rev. Dr. CORBETT, of Illmois. I can only say j 
in reply that that seems reasonable, for the docu- 
ments were posted in the city of Chicago on Satur- 
day, and therefore ought to bo here to-morrow 
morning by the farthest. I should think Wednes- 
day would be a sufficiently reasonable time to wait. 

May I ask, before sitting down, in case the papers 
should not have arrived by Wednesday morning, 
v/111 the fact of this postponement to Wednesday 
morning being decided upon x)reciude the possibility 
of their being put in ? 

The PRESIDENT. I should think not. The 
matter will be before the House at all times to dis- 
pose of, in theii' discretion, according to circum- i 
stances. | 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. There is a rea- : 
son, I think, why this question should be postponed, j 
There are several Deputies to my knowledge, men I 
of experience and men of influence, who left here j 
on Saturday, and who will not return imtil to-mor- 
row. It occm^ to me that, in a matter of such vast i 
importance as this, in addition to the suggestion of 
the Deputy last up, every member of this Conven- 
tion ought to know at least a day in advance when 
the subject will be taken up, so that if he is within 
a day's journey from here he can be here if he i 
pleases. I hope the question wiU be postponed until [ 
Wednesday. | 

Rev. Mr' ROGERS, of Texas. This motion is to j 
override our rules of order. I do not object to j 
Wednesday or Thm^sda-y, or next week, I move to j 
amend by inserting "at 13 o'clock on Wednesday," ' 



and then we do not override our rules of order or 
set any bad precedent for the action of this 
House. 

The PRESIDENT. Although I am inclined to 
think a special order of the day can be made over- 
i-iding the rides, conformably to the suggestion of 
the gentleman from Western New "York, yet I 
would prefer having a day or two to consider that 
point ; and as it is a fact that we shall hardly reach 
this business until a few minutes before twelve 
o'clock on Wednesday, that being, as all here are 
aware, a Litany day, I think it would be much bet- 
ter for us to make this business simply the order of 
the day for Wednesday. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
will name any hour the Chair wishes. 

The PRESIDENT. Twelve o'clock wiB suit me ; 
I merely wish to avoid deciding the other question 
imjyromptu. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
You will observe, Mr. President, that unless I make 
the motion before twelve o'clock, or at twelve, the 
Calendar will take its place. 

The PRESIDENT. Let it be twelve, if you 
plea,se. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
cheerfully acquiesce in the suggestion of the Chair, 
if it be the wish of the House to make this matter the 
special order for Wednesday, at twelve o'clock. 
That may, however, involve the removal of our 
fi'iends from the galleries. 

The PRESIDENT. No, sir, they will not come. 
It is moved to postpone the reports of the Committee 
on the Consecration of Bishops until Wednesday, at 
twelve o'clock. 

The motion was agreed to. 

BOARD OF MISSIONS NOMINATING COMMITTKE. 

The PRESIDENT. The second order of the day 
is to proceed to ballot for a committee of three 
ClergjTnen and three Laymen to sit with a com- 
mittee of the House of Bishops to nominate a Board 
of Missions. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I would 
nominate Rev. Dr. Burgess, of Massachusetts: 
Rev. Dr. Scarborough, of Pittsbm'gh; Rev. 
Dr. Locke, of Ilhnois; Mr. Welsh, of Pennsylvania; 
Mr. Cornwall, of Kentucky, and Mr. McV/horter, 
of Central New York. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I move that 
we dispense with the ballot, these names are so ac- 
ceptable. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to dispense with 
the ballot, and these names be voted upon. 
The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the 
election of the gentleman named as the Committee 
named to nominate the Board of Missions. 

The gentlemen named were elected. 

LAMEETH CONFERENCE. 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
Are resolutions in order ? 

The PRESIDENT. They are. The Calendar has 
been disposed of. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Then I 
call for the consideration of the resolution I offered 
a v/hile ago. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Mr. President, I 
interposed an objection to the resolution of my 
friend from Long Island. I desire now to withdraw 
it, having understood the object of the resolution. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I caU for 
the resolution. 

The Secretary read the resolution, as follows : 

"Whereas, In the address of the Right Rev. the 
Lord Bishop of Lichfield, made to this House on tho 
occasion of his formal presentation on the 9th inst., 
as well as in the address of the Most Rev. the Metro- 



75 



politan of Canada and tlie Bishops of Elingston and 
Quebec upon the same occasion, reference was made 
to tlie probable reasseniblino- of a Lambeth Confer- 
ence at an early day, including* an intimation that 
an expression of the sentiment of this Church upon 
the subject might possibly facilitate the convening 
of the second session of this Conference. There- 
fore. 

"Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies respectfully submit for the considera,tion 
of the House of Bishops its cordial approbation in 
any measures that may be proposed by the Chiirch 
•of England for the reassembling of the Lambeth 
C!onference in a second session. 

" Resolved, That the foregoing preamble and res- 
olution be commimicated to the Hou-se of Bishops 
as a message from the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies." 

The PRESIDENT. Does the Deputy from Long 
Island wish to speak to the resolution ? 

Rev. Dr. SCHimCK, of Long Island. If there is 
to be any debate on the resolution, I should like to 
be heard ; but I hope it will not elicit any debate. I 
presume there is no occasion for discussion; the 
matter is plain; it is readily understood by the 
House, 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I confess that I rise with difSdenco to express 
the opinions I am about to express on what I deem 
a very important subject, if a farce can be deemed 
to have importance. This is to be a repetition of 
a scene which took place in 18G7, i think, on the in- 
vitation of the late Archbishop of Canterbury to 
the Bishops of the Anglica,n Communion in the 
Colonies and the Bishops of the Anglican Com- 
munion, or who vv-ere in any way connected with it, 
in these llnited States. Now, mark, by this invita- 
tion — it was nothing but a polite invitation 
of one gentleman — the Church of England 
as a Chiu'ch had nothing to do with it — gentlemen 
here in America were called to travel, some three 
thousand, many three thousand five himdi'ed or | 
four thousand miles, to go and visit the late Arch- i 
bishop of Canterbuiy. It was said to be for a con- j 
ferenco, but only four days were tlio pei'iod ap- ' 
pointed for that conference. It was a mere invita- 
tion to a Canterbiu-y tea-party, nothing 
else ; and then what was the consequence j 
These gentlemen go there — I thank God i 
that my Bishop had too much sense to go — they go j 
there, and what is the result ? They go there full j 
of this then recent affair in the British Colonies, the I 
Colenso busine.<5s, and they find that by a jjrivate j 
arrangement made by the Ai'chbishop of Canter- | 
bury nothing of the kind can be entertained ; and j 
after politely waiving wha.t I would deem thcii- i 
rights in the matter, the four days vrere soon ex- i 
ponded, of course, as much of our "time is expended, I 
in preliminary discussions, and at the expira- i 
tion of that time v/hat have they done ? ! 
What co'old they do ? The Church of Eng- j 
land dare not "move in a matter of that | 
kind unless assm-ed that the state will back her in | 
v;-ha.t she does. Thank God, we belong to a Church j 
that does not ask toleration from the state, but pro- [ 
tection, and we ask nothing else ; and we say, when i 
the state does attempt to put its hands on the Ark { 
of God which is committed to our protection, j 
"Stand off, stand off !•' '■' Procxd est prof ani ! j 

Now, sir, we are asked to affirm to the Bishops 1 
tha,t we are ready to consent to another farce of j 
that land, for it was nothing but a farce, l 
and a farce which ended in something very tra- 
gical. When these Right Reverend Fathers gathered | 
from Australia, from America, and from the little \ 
dominion of England (little compared with I 
the dimensions of this dominion of ours in the ' 
LTnitc-d States), what was the result ? After the four ' 



j days* cnnfer.^-^T i •■.o-- came to the conclusion to se- 
! para to in th.-.- nor possible, and xn-oposed — I 

do not kno .v "uul ihat the proposition came from 
him "who was at that time the presiding Bishop 
of oiir Cirareh — that the Bishops should 
have their final meeting in Westnnnster Abbey, 
i What was the resuJt ? A priest, who forsooth had 
I the authority of the Dean there, said, " No, gentle- 
i men," to all the Bishops^ of the Anglican Com- 
i munion in the world — "No, gentlemen, you shall 
I not go there " — that very man who admits to the 
Holy Conunmiion with other good men (and I trust 
! he might have been a good man, thouo h a. very er- 
I roneous one) a Sociuian afterwai'ds. Gentle- 
I men, are we going in any way to countenance 
j this ? 

j Let me teU you fin-ther that the right reverend 
j gentleman who has taken so strong an interest in this 
i subject has made a proposition, and the proposition 
I is that we should become on e great province, if you 
I please, with the Archbishop of Cajuterbiu-y as Ivtet- 
; ropolitan of these United States for the nonce, and 
i that in ail these conferences the Archbishop of Can- 
terburj^ as the great Metropolitan or Patriarch, 
is to"^ ' preside. Gentlemen, are we, who 
know that the English Chm'ch did not dare to give 
us a Bishop imtil the;/ got the consent of Parlia- 
ment, — are we prepared to take a man appointed 
under a conge cVelire, a permission to elect, but at 
! the same time a,ssuring "them if you do not elect 
you have got to take the other alternative, 
and we will oust you and send you to th 
Tower,'" — are we to put this free Churc- 
in the hands of or with a person thu 
appointed at the head ? I say there i 
no parity in the case. I s^y there is "no respecta- 
bility in the case. I say what is more, that you can 
not do a thing that will injure this Church'more in 
the estimation of this RepubKc than such a move- 
ment as that. God forbid that I shoidd ever forget 
what the Chirrch of Engiand in her society did f oi- thi--^^ 
country. God forbid that 1 should forget what the 
sovereignty of England in days past in our colonial 
period did. But I never can forget that again and 
again the Church hi the coimtry petitioned for per- 
fection, ' ' S end us a Bishop. " W e had to send oui- can- 
didates 3,000 miles, and two-thirds of them, or one- 
half at least, died before they came back with permis- 
sion to officia,te : and why did that Chiurch refuse f 
Simply because the timid state was afraid of secta- 
rianism here, ajid that they would injure them^selves 
and their government at home if they made the 
Church here perfect. 

I Imow that many are wont to call the Church of 
England the Mother Church. I hold that she is not. 
If so, I claim her to be nothing but a very poor 
stepmother. The Chm^ch in this country never was 
perfected till she got her perfection by the consecra- 
tion of Seabury from the Bishops of' Scotland, and 
if we acknowledge a mother other than the Mother 
Church of Jerusalem (which I am not prepared to 
acknowledge), we must acknowledge Scotland, not 
England. 

I could say a great deal more on this subject ; full 
of it i am ; but, under the ciixumstances, I think I 
have said enough to satisfy the members of this 
House that they had better let it alone, and wait 
till the Bishops tell us what they think of it. They 
are the persons interested. They accepted the first 
invitation without asking us "with your leave" or 
"by your leave." Now, after they have been bluff- 
ed, and this Church, I would say, insulted as it 
has been by the Dean of Canterbuiy, and by the 
prearrangement of keeping out the very question 
which these gentlemen, at a large expense of time 
and money, went to attend to, why not leave them 
fii'st to express their opinion? My word for it, from 
what I know of the self-respect of the members of 



76 



that House, if you wait for that you will wait to 
Vae end of the term. 

Rev. Br. SCHENGK, of Long Island. Mr. 
Presideri.t, I had no conception that the venerable 
Deputy from Connecticut entertained such feelings 
of animosity. 

Rev. Dr. IlEAD, of Connecticut, i do not, 
sir. I have shown no feeling of animosity, but 
simply of self-respect. 

Rev. Dr. SCHSNCK, of Long Island. I may be 
permitted, Mr. President, to choose my own words. 
I say i had no idea that the gentleman had such feel- 
ings of ammosity toward the Church of England, 
or toward those fifteen or twenty- (I forget how 
many) venerable Bishops of cur Church who went 
across the water to the Fan- Anglican Conference, as 
it was called, of 1SG7. I cannot disgTuse my aston- 
ishiner.t at tantoinp animis ccelestibus irce. Know- 
ing him in other sxid such very general 
relations, and knowing his loyalty to 
the Church, and knowing how ready he' is to stand 
up not only for this pai-ticular branch of it but for 
the Church cathoMc, I must say that I am quite 
overwhelmed. V/hen I wa^s asked if I had any re- 
marks to ma,ke concerning this resolution, I said no, 
because I supposed it would not elicit debate. 
An objection" that was to be taken hawing been 
withdrawn by the distinguished Deputy from 
Virginia upon a clearer apprehension of the 
terms, as I supposed, of tlie preamble and 
resolution, I took for granted that the way 
was clear for a unanimous passage, for I haci 
made enquiries in the House in various quarters 
concerniDg it. I had intended olTering it on Satur- 
day, but I deferred it thai} I might get at what I 
supposed to bo a fair e::ipression of the average senti- 
ment of the House on the subject.- But now, after 
this warm and very cogent speech — for the dis- 
tingTiished CiericaJ "Deputy from. Connecticut al- 
ways speaks cogejitly and generally with a great 
deal of ' warmth— 1 feel that it is necessary to say 
something in defence of the resolution. 

The Bishops who went out to the Conference of 
1S67 had no opportunity of being advised by this 
House before they went, and therefore the argument 
in tha=,t regard falls to the ground. I urthermore, 
let me say that the House of Bishops regaid it as a 
delicate matter for them to propose to tins House that 
they shall of their own action elect themselves 
to iDe members of a distant conference without some 
suggestion on the part of this House ; and therefore 
the Clerical Deputy was perfectly light when he said 
that if we waited for the action of the House of 
Bishops we should wait for ever. They w ill cer- 
tainly never take that action. 

1 do not propose entering into a labored defence 
of the Conference of the Anghcan Bishops in 1867. 
I was there at the time, and I was present at the 
opening religious services of that Conference. I 
was in daily communication with the deputation of 
American Bishops. I know perfectly well that dur- 
ing that time there was a degree of enthusiasm 
on the part of the Bishops of the Ameri- 
can Church representing different phases of 
churchmanship. I remember very well the 
distinguished Prelate who was then our Presid- 
ing Bishop, and the late Bishop of Ohio, saying to 
me time and again that they felt that that Corif er- 
ence was designed to remove misunderstandings, to 

E remote perfect sympathy thi'oughout the different 
ranches of the Church, to root more fu-mly the 
conserv?i,tive sentiment of the Church through- 
but the world and make it more com- 
pletely one ; that they felt that the 
interchange of sentiments and feelings there 
would have a tendency to banish from the Church 
what has been called the madness of extremes. I 
know that, though that Conference did not meet the 



v-dshcs of those who espect-sd special legislation, for 
it was not in the power of that Conference to take 
any legislative action. As the Deputy from 
Coimecticut has already said, they had no 
such power. It vras purely a voluntary gather- 
ing together, precisely this \vili be, not for the 
promulgation of dicta or dogma, but for the simpio 
purpose of conferring concerning the intercsts'of 
Christ in the several jurisdictions represented by 
the Bishops who. come together for that purpose— 
simplj^ that, Mr. President, and nothing more. 

There is no proposition made, and there is no idea 
entertained of any such ofiice or proposed ofSce as 
that of the Archbishop of Canterbury assuming to- 
wards the Church in this country the relation of a 
Metropolitan to a Province, or his becoming the Pa- 
triarch of the Anglican Church, or any views such as 
we know have been entertained by Utopian dream- 
ers in ecclesiasticism at various times and in differ- 
ent parts of the Church — nothing of the sort. 
It is simply a conference that comes to- 
gether under the ca-U of liim whom we recognize 
as the highest officer in our branch of the Christian 
Church, for the pm-pose of communing together 
upon the greatest interests of the Church, for the 
purpose of promoting those interests in every way — 
coming together that they may infuse into each 
other the same energetic spirit that they carry into 
their work in the different Dioceses, and in that 
blessed fusion enjoy not only the communion of 
saints but, at the same time, give fresh impetus to 
the CathoKc idea, enlarge it, augment it, and give it 
m_ore practical and universal adaptation. 

I cannot say that I take any Very great special 
personal interest in this matter. I pi-efer referring 
it to those whc have wiser heads a.nd who are more 
experienced than I. 1 can only say tha.t I can see 
nothing detrimental possibly to grow out of srich a 
Conference, and I can see a great deal that will be 
of advantage to the Chmx-h that v/lll grow out of it. 

The preamble and resolution, vrhich I worded 
with the utmost care, Mr. President, you will f.nd 
commit us to nothing, involve simply nothing but 
the expression of a i3oiite sentiment. And when the 
Bishop of Lichfield, "v/ho is here as the guest of this 
Church and who preached the inaugiJiral sermon of 
tiiis Convention, states, as he did hero on the Othinst., 
that he regards the coming together of that Confer- 
ence in London in 1867 as the most important 
event since the Refoimation, I take it for granted 
that this Convention owes it, at least to the cause of 
consistency in inviting that distinguished prelate 
to come here, to give some little weight to the 
words that he speaks in reference to this matter. I 
do not know that I agree with hinr, but I am only 
speaking of the weight which i say properly 
attaches to the v^ords that he speaks in this con- 
nection. ^ 

I ask only a formal expression of our opinion that 
we present it to the House of Bishops to consider any 
measure, to express theii' approbation to any measure 
tha.t maybe adopted in reiereEce to that convening — 
probably my v^ording there, ."by the Church of 
England," is a mistake, and probably I ought to 
say, "by the Archbishop of Canterbury," because 
the point made by the Clerical Deputy of Corinecti- 
cut is correct that it is not done by the Chiurch 
of England in its corpora.te capacity either as an 
Establishment or as a Chmxh, but it is done at the 
call of the Arclibishop of Canterbury, and I shall 
therefore be very happy to a.mend my resolution by 
accepting his suggestion in that particular, in order 
to make it to be entirely according to the facts of 
the case. 

But, sir, I feel that we are making entirely too 
much of a matter that, so far as we are concerned 
in this House, should be merely a matter of formal- 
ity or a matter of courtesy, i^ter all, this is not 



77 



the endorsement of this House of anything t: at i:^ 
to be done hereaftei". It is merely an expression of 
an opinion that if in the wisdom of 
the Bishops of tl:e Chiirch of England 
they see fit to call a conference of the 
Bishops ropresc-ntinjj not only the Church in Eng- 
land, but the Cclorial Church jn different parts of 
the world, and vhe Protestant Episcopal Church in 
this coimtiy. vre are disposed' to receive any 
STich proposition as that kindly — pohtely, if j^cu 
choose. There is no action proposed that com- 
mits us to anything whatever, I therefore 
beg to deprecate, " Mr. President, any violent dis- 
cussion on this subject. I would not have said, as 
I intimated in the beginning, an3rthing at all had it 
not been elicited and made necessary by the 
remarks of my distinguished friend the Clerical 
Deputy from Cvonnecticut. I therefore would sub- 
mit to the catholic feeling, to the evangelical senti- 
ment, and to the hospitable ideas of this House 
under existing circunista.nces, that this resolution 
ought to pass without opposition. 

Rev. Dr. XORTOX, of Virginia. Mr. President, 
in aU the deliberations of this House wliich have 
come under my observation, I have never felt so 
great surprise as that a resolution of this kind shoidd 
be offered and urged as one of mere courtesy. Vl ere 
it a mere question of delicate consideration, of hos- 
pitality, as the gentleman expresses it, I presume 
there is not one in this House vrho could for a mo- 
ment hesitate in an ansious desire to express our 
warm gratitude to those who have come to us from 
the Mother Church, honored by every member of our 
Chm-ch, and i am sui-e by- n h/^ ir ^^re heartily than 
my honored friend from C : ;;t. 

But, sir, if it be a mere (V ■ : u as to whether the 
Bishops of this Church shall accept a -social invita- 
tion, if such invicaticn in 'fature may be 
tendered them, a meeting for social confer- 
ence or for spiritual improvement, I submit 
that the strong language " contained in tMs 
resolution is entirely cut of place, and, more- 
over, that it is not the part cl' this Convention 
in advance, to express their warm approval of 
the Bishops accepting an invitation to a mere social 
entertainment. But, sir, if there is something more 
than this, which is in the fuLure and connected with 
this Conference, then to pass upon the subject in so 
informal a manner— to treat as a mere matter of 
courtesy that which seems to aim at an organic 
change in all the relations of om- Church to the 
Anglican Communion — is to me amazing. 

Sir, the gentleman treats with great contempt the 
idea that there is anjlhing more than a social enter- 
tainment or sphitual conference for the benefit of 
their Churches aimed at. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I beg par- 
don. I used no succh language. I said nothing 
about this being a social enter caimnent ; much less 
did I say that it was nothing more than a social en- 
tertainment. 

Rev. Dr. iN ORTOI^', of Virghoia. I understood the 
gentleman to have affirmed his conviction that there 
was nothing intended like new relations between 
this Church and the Church of England, and especi- 
ally that no one seriously dreamed of recognising 
the Archbishop of Canter bmy as the Primate of the 
Anghcan Comnnunion. That i understood distinct- 
ly to be affirmed by the gentleman. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK. of Long Island. Yes. sir. 

Rev. Dr. J^ORTO]^T, of Vu'ginia. Then sm-ely we 
ought to hesitate before receiving his assurance in 
the face of all the many intimations which have 
come to other gentlemen in a great variety of forms 
that there was scmethiag more hoped for by those 
who are pushing forward these measm-es." Now, 
sir, if it be a mere matter of com-tesy that our Bi- 
shops should meet theii' brother Bishops and confer 



; v- vr'i tliem, I submit that the Diocese of each 
C7::e of om* Bishops is the only pai-ty 
I competent to give advice and express ap- 
j proval, and if need be furnish the means. But 
I if this be intended as the forenmner of some new 
1 legislative body which in the future shall give la,w 
! to all the Anglican Communion, which shall inter- 
i fere with the independence of the American Church, 
i it seems to me the most momentous question which 
i could be brought to om- notice ; and if there be 
j any serious "intention in this movement, or 
I any serious aim in it, it appears to me it 
I must come somewhat in this shape. I am 
I sure that if our Church is to grow 
j and prosper in the land, it must be as an independent 
j Church, attached to ail the sympathies, thoughts, and 
^ institutions of the American people. And, consid- 
ering how little we know with certainty of the last 
Lambeth Conference, how chary they were of in- 
f oiToing the public as to what they said and what 
they did, it can scarcely be claimed that we ai'e 
called upon in advance to exj^ress our cordial ap- 
! proval of our Bishops accepting an invitation, if 
I perchance they m.av receive it. 

: Rev. Dr. YHnTO]^, of Massachusetts. Mr. Pre- 
j sident, it strikes me that there could hai^dly be a 
i proposition made to this House on any general 
I subject so entirely gratuitous, at least in one aspect 
I of it, and so suggestive of ail pregnant mischief In 
I another aspect of it. It is gratuitous, because we 
j are not called upon to say a word on the subject. 
I of the resolution means anything, it means that 
j this House shall say to the Bishops : "We would 
I like to have you go to England." YTe have no 
I autliority to take any such stand or utter any voice, 
i Therefore it is gratuitous, and therefore not to be 
I admitted. But touching the other view of the matter, 
i as a mere demonstration of kindness, is it necessary 
I that there should be a repetition of that interchang^e 
i of visits of 1SG7 ? Let the Conference ot Lambeth 
j pass for what it may, the prospective m^eeting at 
I Lambeth is not a Conference. All who have read 
I the English papers, aU who listened to the Bishop of 
i Lichfield the other do.y, can understand perfectly 
I well that the aim of this whole proceeding is to in- 
I augurate an orgsmized and grand synod of the 
I whole English-speaking Churcli, the Aix'hbishop of 
i Cantei"bmy to be its legitimate and recognized Pri- 
j mate. It 'is then an organic entity that is to be 
called into being by this action. Inow let us look a 
1 moment at the bearings of that, 
i It is not a mere social gathering ; it is not a festi- 
! vai outside, nor a festival of reason simply, but it is 
j to come together to deliberate upon principles of 
I Chm'ch doctrine, Church practice, Cmorch interests 
I in some shape or other ; and inasmuch as the Church 
I of England cannot legislate with authority without 
Parliament to help it, it can, nevertheless, when it 
gathers together in this imposing form, put forth it^ 
decrees with a certain aspect of authority. Now, 
suppose our Bishops go, not once, but remember the 
idea is to have it periodically. The Bishop of Lich- 
field told us the other day most emphatically how 
deeply his soul vras in earnest in the matter, and for 
i that purpose in great part did he come here to effec- 
I tuate — what ? Union ; independence, indeed, but 
i umion. Organic union, that must mean. 

Are we ready for organic union with the Chm-ch 
of England ? Are we ready — I do not say to re- 
ceive our laws from her, but are we ready to sit 
down in a state of receptiveness, and say to her 
j highest authority in matters of doctrine, "Teach 
us ; we will carry home these views to our Church 
I at home, and no doubt they will be vastly influ- 
j enced by the authority of this Synod " ? We sxre 
j importing a sovereignty from abroad. Now, are 
I we so far removed from our origin as a Chm'ch that 
i we have forgotten how this Chm'ch had to fight 



7: 



•8 



against, as its main opponent, tlie constant cry and 
charge, "You arc Anglican, you are monarchical 
there is nothing republican in you, there is nothing 
in you adapted at all to popular institutions Do 
we not Imow how the Fathers of the Church — all 
honor be to their memory — studiously aimed to 
adapt the institutions of this organism to those of 
oiu- civil arrangements ? And has it not been many 
a time a matter of admiration, 'and might I not 
say an argument by which" we could at 
once overpov/er all manner of suggestion 
against the popularness of this institution of 
ours ? We have proved that it was purely 
American, and many an elaborate sermon was 
preached in our early history to prove that the 
American Episcopal Church had no organic connec- 
tion whatsoever with the Church of England. We 
say the same again and again ; and now are we so 
clean demented that we shall ourselves make over- 
tures for the reproduction of that which well-nigh 
swamped us at the beginning, and will most assur- 
edly overwhelm us with deserved reproach at the 
end ? Why, can you carry this Church of ours ? 
I am now supposing what is possible, and only 
possible, I will admit ; but, if possible, 
a thing to be shunned, that possibility being 
this, namel y : the returning influence of our Bish- 
ops from the grand Pan-Anglican Synod, and 
bringing v/ith them in spite of themselves the re- 
membrance and the reflection of that power born 
in that institute; they will bring it here and, wheth- 
er consciously or unconsciously, they will diffuse it 
more or less. It will take an organic form; by and 
by that Synod v/ill want to be heard here and it will 
want to be heard with authoiity, and then it 
becomes a recognised power. That is the point 
I am looking forward to. Let that come ; when we 
go abroad m this great American Union, where 
liberal ideas, ideas of personal, and civil, and eccle- 
siastical freedom are as the very breath of life to 
the population, can we suppose that we can recom- 
mend our Church to strangers and outsiders when, 
on looking into us a little, they say, "Why, but you 
are connected with the Church of England; you are 
positively under the authority of a foreign eccle- 
siastical dominion ; you are not American ; v/e will 
none of you " ? I am sm'e that every American 
lieart here to-day must feel that this is a living like- 
lihood ; it cannot be escaped, and it would be fatal. 

The only question whether all this is true or not 
depends on the possibility, the potentiality of it. I 
believe it to be wrapped up in this movement. The 
Bishops may go of their ov/n free motion and make 
another visit to Lambeth, if their expenses can be 
paid, and they would enjoy the visit. There are 
no more university degrees for them to be 
ornamented with on their visit, but never- 
theless they would, no doubt, enjoy the visit 
exceedingly ; but oh ! let it be a visit, let it be com- 
munion, if you please, to their hearts' content ; 
communion not only at the same altar, but commu- 
nion in the household, by the wayside, arm in arm, 
but never organic, integral union. God save this 
dear Church from any such combination as that, 
any entanglement of foreign and uncongenial alli- 
ances that would merge her j^rosperity before it is 
fully born. 

The PRESIDENT. There is a standing order that 
the House shaU take a recess at half-past one o'clock. 
That hour has arrived. The House now takes 
a recess to two o'clock. 

At two o'clock P.M. the House resimied its ses- 
sion. 

REFEEENCE OF IVIBSSAGES. 

On motion of Rev. Dr. BURR, of Ohio, the message 
of the House of Bishops (No. 11) in regard to the 
division of the Diocese of Ohio was referred to the 
Committee on the Admission of New Dioceses. 



On motion of Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia, 
Messages Nos. 8 and 9 of the House of Bishops were 
referred to the Committee on Canons. 

LESSONS FOR LENT. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut, presented a Ta- 
ble of Lessons for Lent, which was referred to th« 
Committee on the Prayer-Book. 

LAMBETH CONFERENCE. 

The PRESIDENT. The House will now resume 
the consideration of the matter pending v/hen the 
recess was taken, being the preamble and resolution 
offered by the Deputy from Long Island [Rev. Dr, 
S cliGnck J 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Mr. President if 
I did not feel most deeply the importance of this 
debate, I should not, in my present state of health, 
venture to engage in it ; and, as it is, I shall be ex- 
ceedingly brief, and shall simply endeavor, with, 
what little physical strength I have, to state some 
few facts which I think essentially necessary for the 
decision of this case. 

In the first place, as to myself. I asmounce that I 
am utterly opposed to relinquishing in any manner, 
directly or indirectly, either affirmatively or by any 
implication, one jot or tittle of the national inde- 
pendence of this Church. Under no possible con- 
trivance, by no possible implication, in no possible 
way do I propose as a layman of this great 
Church to allow any interference with its 
continental independence. I hope that is plain 
enough. Now, I will go farther. I do 
not think the Lambeth Conference has yet 
endangered the independence of this Church. I do 
not think, if properly conducted, it will ever en- 
danger the independence of this Church. These are 
facts which it seems to me ought to dispel all appre- 
hension on this occasion. 

There are several parties to this movement of dif- 
ferent temperaments. One of them is the great 
Apostolic Prelate whom we have welcomed twice 
to this Convention, the illustrious Prelate of whom 
I speak with the most unbounded admiration as a 
Churchman, as a gentleman, as a historian, as a 
man. In every capacity in which I can know hu- 
man nature he deserves honor and affection. 
I do not enter into the motives of this 
movement, but I simply say that he is affirmatively 
moving, in my belief, to gratify what he has largely 
developeed in his great nature, the power of organ- 
ism. He does wish, I have no doubt, something like 
an organic union of the two Churches of the two 
great English-speaking races. That movement, to 
a certain extent, is creditable and desirable, but to a 
certain other extent it is extremely dangerous a^d 
utterly inadmissible. 

There is no doubt the Bishop of Lichfield has in 
view some measures that shall, in the first place, 
secure the integrity of the Prayer-Book. I see 
before me many clerical faces ; and let me ask who 
is there here that does not want to secure the 
integrity of the Prayer-Book from all mutilation, 
from indiscreet alteration, and from all partial 
readjustment for any local or temporary purpose '{ 
I am opposed to all alterations in the Prayer-Book 
at the present, and will go to the last extremity to 
oppose any alteration whatever in it. 

One great object that he has in view, I believe, is 
to induce the two great Churches to hold one doc- 
trine on that subject, to say that they will not allow 
the Prayer-Book, I am almost willing to go as far 
as to say that we will not alter it, except by the con- 
joint consent of the two great Enghsh Churches, 
the Church of old England and the greater Church 
of New England, and when I say that I do 
not underrate this Church in old England. 
Old England has a laity of thirty millions of people, 



79 



but we represent a laity which will soon be many- 
more niilKons. We have a large Church, and wo 
shall soon represent more laity. Therefore, we have 
a Church of more efficiency, a stronger Church, a 
better Church than the Chm'ch of England. For 
this reason I am not wilMng to make this Church 
subordinate to the Chm-ch of England. 

One issue now forced upon us is the striking out 
of the Filioque clause in the Creed as to the proces- 
sion of the Holy Ghost from the Father 
and the Son. We ha,ve a dozen memorials before 
us on that subject. One good reason v/hy it 
should not be done is that the English Church is not 
yet ready, and it is much better to secure the co- 
operation of the Anglican Church and the American 
Church at some harmonious, voluntary, fraternal 
conference, so as to have co-ordinate action on that 
point. Surely, however, we can act together with- 
v/ithout organic union. Perhaps there are points, 
which I will not now go into, where slight altera- 
tions in the Prayer-Book would secure more peace 
in our Church, but they ought not to be made 
lightly. 

I would willingly put my band in my pocket to 
help pay the expenses of the Bishops attending this 
fraternal Conference. There is nothing wrong in a 
Conference assuredly ; but if you think it be with- 
out merit, trample it under foot instantly. I have 
no objection to the Bishops of these 
two English-speaking nations meeting in 
Conference, These nations ought always to 
be at peace. When lately fifteen millions 
of dollars were paid to this country by England in 
settlement of certain claims, I said, "We have been 
badly treated by England in former times, but re- 
]5aration has been made, and I am content. " This 
Church ought to be content. In these two countries 
there are more Episcopalian Christians than there 
were in the whole Roman Empire in the days of 
Claudius. It is proposed that these two great masses 
of English-speaking Christians shall have a meeting, 
and when they get together they shall have somebody 
to sit in the Chair, to be the President. Certainly 
somebody must occupy the Chair ; and the distin- 
guished man to whom I have referred thinks that 
by virtue of ancient traditions and the usage of a 
thousand years the Archbishop of Canterbury 
should be that man ; but as we have not lived a 
hundred years we do not yet see that it should be so. 

Again, he proposes that the Archbishop shall ap- 
ix>iut in the course of time a council to pronounce 
on all controverted questions of doctrine, and espe- 
cially on all alterations of the Prayer-Book, and 
that we should guide ourselves by the judgment of 
that council. I am opposed to that. I think that 
is organic, very organic indeed, an organism that 
strikes right into our doctrine. I trust this House 
of Deputies will never agree to it. But what says 
the Archbishop of Canterbury ? In the report of 
the debates in the Convocation, the Archbishop of 
Canterbury dissented from this view. He said he 
did not wish any attempt to create, under any name, 
a patriarchate ; that any such name he was utterly 
opposed to ; and that he would not consent to 
e^ll the Lambeth Conference, except on con- 
dition that no such proposition should be made. 
He also said, what is still more important, that he 
would not invite the Conference if they were to do 
any business of an organic character — he did not 
use these words, but that was the substance — and he 
did not wish them to recommend any measure for 
adoption. His phrase was that they should confer 
together, exchange opinions side by side, but not pro- 
pc^e, still less adopt, any distinct measures. It would 
simply be a conversation, mutual explanations, 
trying to come together, for these two Churches 
are mother and daughter^ and if any man is 
ashamed of the Church of England, our Mother 



Church, I am ashamed of him. Let mother and 
daughter come together and have a friendly talk. 
Ai'e you not willing that our Bishops shall go as far 
as that ? Why not introduce a resolution saying 
Low far you are willing that they shall go ? 

But, sir, this is an invitation to the Bishops. I 
say for one that 1 shall be very glad to see our 
Bishop of Nev/ York go. Pie will be honored 
wherever he goes. It is for him to accept the invi- 
tation. If he chooses to go, let him go. Surely, let 
him go if he thinlcs he can do any good by going. 
But why do we need any organized action on the 
subject ? If the gentleman who offers the resolu- 
tion will not withdraw it, I ask him to modify it by 
adding such terms as will show our intention to pre- 
serve for all time to come the independence of our 
beloved Church. 

We have a solemn duty in this Church to dis- 
charge with the English Church, What is that sol- 
emn duty ? What is the common danger ? What 
is the common enemy ? Who but the Pope of 
Rome ? Is he not the enemy on this continent, and 
also abroad ? I will stand by the English Church 
shoulder to shoulder, breast to breast, if it is neces- 
sary, to fight the Pope — I do not mean to fight 
the Pope personally, but to resist Papal assumptions. 
I shall resist them at all times, and in all places, and 
in all possible manners. That, I think, is the great 
call for the junction of these Churches, and their 
junction will lead to another conjunction. When 
these Churches agree to talk together — that is all we 
ask, that they shall talk together, not act — 
when the great English-speaking races shall 
have thus agreed, the great Sclavonic race 
will come in, the Greek Church is ready to join us 
at once. We can unite, and with this combined 
power of ours the Pope will be shorn to a very 
great extent, I am for co-operation, not conjunc- 
tion. All I ask is that we may co-operate, compai'e 
ideas together, and report the result. When there is 
a congress of nations, the representatives 
of eacli confer with the others, and 
go bade and report to their own Government. 
Bo with this Congress of Churches co-operating with 
each other, one regarding itself as good as the other. 
That is the species of Conference I want. I am for 
having our Bishops go to the Lambeth Conference 
under certain specific limitations, and I hope some 
gentleman who has more strength and more voice 
than I will draw up the proper restrictions. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. Mr. Presi- 
dent, it seems to me there are two questions : First, 
How does this matter come before us ? Our 
honored guest, the Bishop of Lichfield, publicly 
here called our attention to this matter, and to the 
great benefits which had resulted from the previ- 
ous Conference, and to the benefits which he antici- 
pated from a subsequent Conference, I think 
after listening to this suggestion it is very proper 
for us to entertain a proposition to give our 
consent or advice to our right reverend fathers 
to accept any such proposition as may come 
before them. Then, sir, I have been personally 
spoken to by one or two Bishops, and requested to 
say something in favor of it. As I understand, our 
Bishops are not Lord Bishops. They are very ready 
and willing, in the true American ttyle, to receive 
suggestions from this House ; and I understand from 
them that, if we express our willingness that they 
should go over and meet the other Bishops, it will 
be a reason for their leaving their Episcopal duties 
at home, because we think that they really go with 
reference to a certain object. 

Sir, I have listened to the speeches of the learned 
gentlemen on the floor, particularly to our learned 
and very highly respected Chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Canons, and I have great respect for his 
opinion and advice. He tells us of the past Confer- 



80 



ence, and he does not know that anything good 
came of it. I think there may be tilings in heaven 
and earth that are not within the philosophy even 
of the learned Chairman of our Committee on Ca- 
nons. Then my friend and colleagne from Massachu- 
setts has a great deal to say about it, and he tells us 
not to do it, because this and that may result. Do 
what ? All that we say is, "We advise you, if you 
are invited to go abroad and have a Conference, to 
do it," They can do nothing. They cannot legis- 
late — the matter comes before us to legislate. It is 
for their information. Sir, here is a common mat- 
ter of saving souls, and human nature is the same 
here as in England, and persons who are engaged in 
that great work can learn a gi'eat deal 
by conferring with persons on the other 
si'de of the water. I think they will learn something. 
Then the benighted "Britishers" may learn some- 
thing too. I had the honor of being present at a 
Church Congress in England some four years a,go, 
and you would have thought the Church of Christ 
was confined to the realm of England. I am very 
giad to let them know that if they come to this con- 
tinent, crossing 3,000 miles of ocean, they can then 
travel 8,000 miles of railroad and find a Church of 
Chi-ist at every stopping place in full com- 
munion v/ith them. I would like them 
to T-fnlize a little the extent of our o'vvn Communion, 
and I think that great benefits would result simply 
from a conference. Then when they have had 
the conference, let our right reverend fathers in- 
structed come back and tell us what is the use of it, 
and then it will be time enough to do the things 
recommended by it. 

My coUeag-ue tells us about potentialities. Sir, it 
is a potentiality that when I go out of this House I 
may fall down and break my leg ; and yet not- 
withstanding that potentiality l mean to do it. 
If this House is going to wait before doing anything 
until it has considered every potentiahty, in my 
opinion this House will do nothing. I am for per- 
forming this act of com^tesy, and advising our 
Bishops simply to go abroad and have a conference 
with their brethren abroad, and let them come back 
and tell us v/hat they have heard, and then it will 
be time for us to consider the mischief that may re- 
sult from any action proposed. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. Mr. 
President, I wish to ofi:er an amendment to the res- 
olution presented by the Reverend Deputy from 
Ijong Island, to strike out all a,fter the word "Re- 
solved " and insert : 

" That this House, having received with deep in- 
terest the intimation given by the Rt. Rev. the Lord 
Bishop of Lichfield of a probable call to a new 
Lambeth Conference, will for action await definite 
information from the House of Bishops on that sub- 
ject." 

My reason for presenting that as an amendment 
to the resolution offered by the Deputy from Long 
Island is, fh-st, that we are deahng, at great loss of 
time, with a subject v/hich is before us so vaguely, 
so indefinitelj^, and so far in the futm-e, that we do 
not know v/hat its bearmg is to be or what its 
eflect is rea-lly to be upon the Church ; that we are 
not prepared to take action, and that wo 
are not prepared, above all things, to com- 
mit ourselves' in terms so strong as those 
used by the original resolution that this House 
will assent to whatever measures may be proposed 
looking to a renewed Lambeth Conference. That 
did commit us, and commit us very strongly. I 
think that it will be a relief to the House and a meas- 
ure of safety, of prudence, of proper judgment, that 
we put off action in this respect until a proposition 
is before us, and we know what we are to act upon. 

The PRESIDENT The question is on the 
amendment. 



Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I v/ish merely 
to say a word. The amendment just offered meets 
'my views precisely, especially after the resolution 
ofLered by my reverend friend from Long Island, 
and it meets my views on the princirjle which 
my good friend who aUuded to me a short 
time since will understand. We have 
heard of a certain lady in Boston who was 
in the habit of minding her own business; and it is 
a common saying nov/adays when persons meddle 
with that which does not concerii them and does 
not come properly before them that they had better 
mind their own business. This is virtually minding 
our own business since this amendment has come 
forward. It is a question for the Bishops to settle. 
I would ask this House v/ho authorized, v/ho assented 
to, who advised the Bishops to attend the first 
Lambeth Conference ? Did v/e ? It never came 
before the House of Deputies. Such a thing was 
not known here. 

There is a good reason besides why this amend- 
ment should be made. The Lord Bishop of Lich- 
field, in his remarks here, alluded to that Confer- 
ence. It would be an act of respect to pass a reso- 
lution such as the gentleman from Central 
Pennsylvania has just offered'; but had not that 
allusion been made, I say it would have been, not a 
mind-your-ov.n-business affair, but a work of super- 
erogation for us to say a word about it or meddle 
"with it until the Bishops saw fit to ask our 
opmion, and if they did I should think they 
would sa.y, "As wise men, if you think it best for us 
to go, teli us so, but you must provide the expenses; 
we have not the salaries or the revenues of Lord 
Bishops." The taunt was once thrown out by a 
Church print that if a Bishop does not go it is be- 
cause his Diocese will not vote him enough money 
to go. That was not the case with the Bishop of my 
Diocese. That taunt caused us to pass a vote, say- 
ing to him, " Whenever you wish to go abroad and 
stay six months or a year, we v/ill pay your ex- 
penses," and that took away the sharp edge of that 
paragraph in the newspaper. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I should havo 
no objection, Mr. President, to the acceptance of 
the amendment offered by the Deputy from Cen- 
tral Pennsylvania, and for the reason that it 
meets a duty which this Plouse ought to perform 
in response to the words which have fallen, 
both in sermons and address, from the 
Bishop of Lichfield ; and it also enables 
the Bishops to act in the matter. For them to take 
the initiative in a measure which is thought to com- 
promise this Church is too much to ask at their 
hands. I beheve they are ready to respond, but 
they want the concert and approval of this House. 

Now, sir, I v/holly dissent" (and with great regret 
I say it) from the venerable Deputy from Connecti- 
cut, when he said he had seen no advantages that 
had followed from the meeting of the former Lam- 
beth Conference. When one takes into account the 
measures that were then initiated and committed, 
from which no reports have come back to the 
general Church, and that those are awaiting the 
action of a future Conference, and when one con- 
siders, in addition to that, the solid, compact body 
which this Anglican Commujaion made on that occa- 
sion, to the admiration, I beheve, of almost every 
branch of the Church ; showing a power and vigor 
and life that had not been before thought of in con- 
nection with the same — ^when one considers these 
two advantages, he can hardly say that no benefit 
has resulted from that Conference. 

Sir, is it a matter of no interest to him who is an 
heir to the privileges of this Church to know that he 
b longs to a Communion numbering to-day about 
160 chief pastors, about 25,000 clergymen, about as 
many millions of Christians, and about two or thre© 



81 



lu^ndred millions of heathens imder the care of 
these two Communions. Is it a matter of no 
consequence to him who wants to be able to 
present a solid front against the Papal power, 
or who wants to come by any impressive march to 
the doors of the Eastern Church, to speak not as 
a sect but as a branch of the original communion 
of the Church Catholic of Christ ? Is it, I say, of 
no interest to him that we belong to a body that 
is not simply boimded by two oceans, but which 
belts the globe with its missions, and with its ori- 
sons and evensongs every day that the annual sun 
circles about the globe ? 

I am in favor of keeping our nationality. I do 
not beheve it is possible for this Church to surrender 
nationality. No legislation for a national Chiu'ch 
can be otherwise than national. But I believe it is 
ix)ssibie to have an organ of intercommunion be- 
tween the branches of the same. I believe it 
is possible to have a sort of Primate 
who shall be a representative of unity, but with 
no power to control. That might be of great 
value. Doubtless, the Bishop of Lichfield expects 
more. He wishes some surrender. He thinks some 
suri'ender perhaps will be asked for ; he wants to 
make something like an organic unity : but he has 
expressly told his friends that so far from the Epis- 
copate in the See of Canterbury aspiring to the 
primacy, the Archbishop of Canterbury refuses to 
be thought of as a Patriarchate or even as a Primate. 
He does not wish any such title. He thinks 
it may complicate matters in a way which may 
prove to be inextricable. And let us bear in mind 
that whatever action is initiated and consummated, 
so far as the Conference can go at the Lambeth 
Conference, will have to be brought back to this i 
Synod for ratification before a single step can be j 
taken ; and every Synod, in its corporate capacity i 
and by its representatives, will give its assent or i 
dissent to the measures there begun. j 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I move ! 
that the whole subject be laid upon the table. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I appeal to 
the gentleman's courtesy, as I introduced the reso- 
lution, to allow me to make a few remai'ks in con- 
clusion. This is almost an imprecedented thing, 
when we are having a grave debate of this kind, to 
have us all silenced in this manner. I trust the 
gentleman will withdraw his motion. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. If it be 
distinctly understood that my motion is renewed as 
soon as the gentleman takes his seat, and that my 
withdi'awal of it is not to be an opening of the way to 
further discussion, I will yield ; but if that cannot be 
done, I persist in mv motion. 

Rev. Dr. SCHEjSTCK, of Long Island. I do not 
like to avail myself of a privilege which is not to be 
accorded to other members of the Convention, un- 
less it may be as the mover of the resolution I am 
in common courtesy entitled to the last remarks 
on it. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. WiU the 
gentleman himself renew the motion to lay on the 
table as soon as he finishes ? 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I cannot. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Then, I 
persist in my motion. 

Mr. GARTHIYAITE, of New Jersey. On this 
question the lay deputation from New Jersey caU 
for a vote by orders. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I appeal to the 
representation from the Diocese of New Jersey not 
to make a test upon this question. If the House 
lays the resolution on the table and indicates thereby 
an aversion to the proposition, the gentleman 
can make a motion at any time to take it 
up and then make his test on that question. If the 
House should now vote down the motion to lay on 



the table, then the question would come up on the 
amendment, and on the original proposition as 
amended or unamended, as the case might be, at 
either of which periods the call for a vote by orders 
could be entertained. What I mean is, that a vote 
by ordere on this question will not settle o^nythinc, 
but the Diocese of New Jersey of course has the right 
to demand it. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
rise to a point of order. Is a motion to lay on the 
table debatable ? 

The PRESIDENT. No, sir ; but an appeal has 
been made to the judgment of the delegation from 
New Jersey to withdraw the call for a vote by oi- 
ders, and I am awaiting the result. 

Mr. GARTHWAITE, of New Jersey. The caU is 
not withdrawn. 

The PRESIDENT. Then the vote will be taken 
by orders on the motion to lay on the table the 
whole matter. 

The Secretary called the roll of Clerical De- 
puties. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. If it be 
in order by the authority of the House, as it is 
necessary in order to carry this motion to have a 
united vote of the clergy and laity, and it is very 
evident that tlie clergy have voted' very decidedly 
in the negative, I would like, in order to save time, 
leave to v^ithdraw the motion, if it can be done. 

The PRESIDENT. That cannot be done. The 
taking of the vote must be concluded. 

The Secretary called the La.y Deputies, and the 
result of the vote was announced as follows : 

Clerical Vote (41 Dioceses represented) — 1 Aye 
(Pennsylvania) ; 4^ Nays. 

Lay Vote (37 Dioceses represented) — 1 Aye (Penn- 
sylvania) ; o5 Nays ; 1 Divided (Tennessee). 
' So the motion to lay on the table was rejected. 

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the 
amendment of the Deputy from Central Pennsyl- 
vania [Rev. Dr. Paretl 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. Mr. President, 
I am opposed to the amendment and in favor of the 
original resolution for reasons which I 
will indicate very briefly. It is clear, I 
think, that since the Bishop of Lichfield 
has made allusion to this matter in his speech, 
some reply is courteously due from this House. 
That being taken for granted, the question arises 
what shall be our reply? If the amendment is 
passed, the House of Bishops will look upon it as 
the opinion of this House that it is not in favor of 
the meeting again of the Lambeth Conference. K, 
on the contrary, the original resolution is passed, 
the House of Bishops will look upon it as an indica- 
tion that this House is in favor of such a meeting. 

Then, in addition to what has been m'ged in favor 
of this meeting, let me present one or tv/o other 
considerations. It is clear, I think, that no organic 
union can by any possibility take place between the 
Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America before a 
concrete proposition is offered to this House. No 
matter how much it may be discussed in the Lam- 
beth Conference, no matter if the opinion of the 
majority of those Bishops should be in its favor, it 
j cannot be accomplished, it cannot move one inch 
! ahead, imtil it has received the sanction of this 
I body. 

j Taking that for granted likewise, I will present 
: one other consideration which has not yet been ad- 
: verted to. I am in favor of the meeting of this 
j Conference. I hope it will meet. I hope the Bishops 
i in the two countries will assemble and hold council 
i together, for the reason that it will be an additional 
j safeguard to any which we have now against 
I divergence in doctrine, a danger of the highest emi- 
' nence and which threatens us possibly very nearly.- 



82 



I am as mucli opposed as any membm' an the floor 
r>f this House to the giving up of our independence 
as a Church ; but we may carry our independence 
into the extreme of isolation. We may refuse to 
confer with our brethren from other Churches ; we 
may close our own doors, until we are all ready and 
ripe for some scheme which will virtually sever us 
( loctrinally from the bodies with which we are in 
communion. Therefore, it is of the highest im- 
portance, it is in obedience to the Chi^stian instinct, 
and which ever struggles for the largest possible 
.symbol of all who compose the Christian com- 
munion, that the representatives of those agreed in 
doctrine shall meet for conference. 

We are already threatened with innovation in 
doc brine. Propositions are brought before this House 
'vhich will amount, if carried, to a severance doc- 
trinally between us and the Church of England. I 
have heard, on this floor, many memorials present- 
ed, the residt of which, if granted, v/ould be to eradi- 
(?ate the Filioque clause from our Creed, and there- 
by we should be severed from the Church of Eng- 
land. We hold ourselves opposed to schism. This is 
the basis of all conceivable and possible schisms 
that could then take place. Other measures of 
coHateral importance have been proposed, and it 
is, as I say, as an additional safeguard against any 
such divergence as this that I hope this Conference 
will meet. If the Bishops do all hold conference 
together, we shall bo brought near together, the tie 
ofljohesion will be strengthened, the danger of di- 
vergence lessened, if for no other reason than to 
preserve our doctrine to the slightest particular. A 
divergence in doctrine is sure to be followed by 
divergence in practice. 

For this ]'eason, as well as other reasons, which I 
will leave to other members to indicate, I am in fa- 
vor of the resolution, and of an endorsement on the 
part of this House of the meeting of the Lambeth 
Conference. 

llev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I have not the 
a^l vantage of having heard the debate which I un- 
derstand to have been carried on here before the re- 
cess of the Convention. Nevertheless I consider that 
this debate is one of the most important in which 
tills House is likely to be engaged during its 
present session. I tliink that it caimot be denied so 
to be, since it looks forward to the coi-porate action 
of the Anglican Comm^union in the grandest body 
that can be assembled, until, in the providence of 
God, there may hereafter be assembled such a meet- 
as his Lordship the Bishop of Lichfield spoke of the 
other day ; that is to say, a G-eneral Synod of the 
whole Anglican Communion, represented in the per- 
sons of its Bishops, its clergy, and its laity. 

I think, sir, when we look back to the last Lam- 
beth Synod, that, upon the whole, there is nothing 
in the v^orld to be ashamed of— nothing in the 
v/oi'ld that we ought not, on the contrary, to thank 
God for, even whiie we recognise imperfections in 
connection with it. I think that we have felt 
stronger, stronger as a Church, stronger as Church- 
men, and as Cathohc Christians strongest of all, 
since the day that sent forth to the Church of Christ 
greetings in Christ all over the Avorld, in that grand 
Encyclical which would have been w^orthy of an 
recumenical coimcil of the primitive age. [Applause 
iu the galleries.] Sir, I am proud — 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will have to 
sit down unless that clapping be stopped. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Am I out of 
order, Mr. President ? 

The PRESIDENT. I suppose that the unseemly 
conduct wdl not be repeated, and therefore you can 
go on. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President, 
do not desire to make a speech ; I am in no condi- 



tion to make a speech ; and yet I find it 
necessary to guard what 1 shall say 
by saying that which I am now about 
to utter. I consider that the grandest meeting of 
Bishops, the greatest, noblest for the good of 
Christ's Church Cathoh'c which has been held for 
centuries is that Conference which was held at 
Lambeth but a few years ago, I think that the holy 
man who presided over that Conference must have 
rejoiced over that last work of his ever since that 
time in the midst of the rest of Paradise. " 

Therefore I am not at all indisposed to support the 
movement for a Lambeth Conference, or for its re- 
assembling. On the contrary, I think nothing now 
can be done that will be more important in the his- 
tory of our Church than that assembly of our chief 
pastors. At the same time I prefer the amendment 
offered to the original resolution, for reasons which I 
shall be able to express, I trust, with brevity. The 
first is this : that we as yet know notliing of the 
manner of the invitation. We as yet do not know 
in what form or in what terms the invitation given 
to our Bishops will be couched ; and let me say that 
that is a very important matter, for in the history of 
this Lambeth Conference it is a fact that three terms 
of perfect technical distinctness have been used, and 
that each one of those three terms would of necessity 
modify our opinion of the invitation. Nothing- 
could be gentler or more modest than the 
original in vitation of the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury to the Bishops of the Anglican Com- 
mmiion to attend a Conference. That is perfectly 
modest. Why should they not on such a 
summons go, as they did go, v^th their hearts in 
their hands 'i But, sir, in the reports of the Lam- 
beth Conference the phi*aseology was changed in a 
i significant manner. We are told in those reports 
i tha.t the Conference was convened; and lately, in 
i the tapper House of the Convoca.tion of Canterbury, 
j his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury used a 
I still stronger phrase when he spoke of his reverend 
I predecessor having summoned the Synod. 
I Now, if our Bishops are to be " invited " by their 
brother and chief, we shall be glad to have them go, 
; at least I shall. If they are to be "convened, " I should 
1 like to know the reasons why that word ' 'convened " 
I is used, or whether they have left it to the Archbishop 
; of Canterbury by their own instructions to use his 
j discretion in convening them. But if a Synod is to 
I be " summoned " I object. We know no such body. 
I We know no authority in any man on earth to sum- 
I mon our Bishops there as a Synod. Therefore, I 
I repeat, Mr. President, it is a matter of some import- 
I ance to us to know in what words this invitation, 
[ the act of convening or summons, may be made. I 
j take it we know nothing about that yet. 
I Again, glorying as we do in all that was done in 
I the first Lambeth Synod — and it was certainly a 
i vast work to be called only a Conference — although 
I we glory in the great work that it did, there were, 
j notwithstanding, connected with it some things 
j which we cannot glory in, some things that were 
I decided defects ; for instance, when the Bishops 
I of this Church and the Bishops of the Eng- 
I lish Colonies found themselves in London, some 
I of them havmg travelled thousands upon thousands 
i of miles, they discovered that the programme of 
I that meeting was already decided in advance ; that 
I the very subject that they went most particularlj^ 
j to consider was pronounced upon, that is, the faith 
I of this Church then assailed by the apos- 
! tate Bishop Colenso, which had been cut 
i out from the programme; and that a private 
understanding had been entered into by the 
Archbishop himself that that greatest and gravest 
of all matters should not be considered. Surely we 
ought to know whether our Bishops are to go there 
as free men, honored, or whether they are to go 



83 



with tlieir moutlis s^hut in advarce, Ixfoi c we fpy 
tJbat we are quite prepared to bave It at repeated. 

Again, when they arrived in London our Bishops 
■discoTered that the teim during which the £efsiou 
x)f the Lambeth Conference was to be held should be 
restricted to four days. What ? Journey for weeks 
at an enormous expenee to sit for four days ' upon 
the whole well-being of the Catholic Church as rep- 
resented in all the multitudinous provinces of the 
British dominions and of this broad land ! And 
mark, Mr. President and brethren, this restriction 
■of the session to a four days' period was done, 
as also the cutting out of the programme was done, 
without the least consultation with any one of cur 
Bishops. TV' hen they arrived there they protested 
against it. Bnt to what avail ? To none whatever. 
Is that anything like a free Synod of the Catholic 
Chm'ch ? ' I say no. And if out Bishops are to go 
there otherwise than as they would be in a free 
Synod of men who are equal in otBce, equal in 
-dignity, equal in authority in the Church, I for one 
object to their going. 

Since those were features of the last Lambeth 
Conference I take it we would like to know some- 
thing about the facts of the present arrangements 
before we give an unqualified acclamation. 

But there is still another thing which I think ought 
to be considered by the Convention. It is, that the 
Lambeth Synod sat in secrecy, I think a 
meeting of the Bishops may, for sundry reasons, 
well be held with closed doors ; but in this particular 
case I think it in the last degree dangerous and ob- 
jectionable. It is tolerated in our own Church, 
though I do not think it is perfectly approved either 
by the clergy or the laity ; but, in the case of the 
Lambeth Synod, where clergy and laity are 
represented alone by those of the chief order, I 
think we are entitled, before we approve the thing, 
to know whether we are to know anything about it. 
I am opposed to one order representing all the other 
orders, while tho other orders remain in ignorance 
of what is done. I regard that point of secrecy in 
the arrangements of the last Lambeth Conference 
as an element of extreme danger, to which this 
House is not prepared to give its sanction in ad- 
vance — at least, without a larger consideration than 
we have any ground to think has yet been given to it. 

Again, a matter strikes me as of very great import- 
ance before we determine to pass resolutions on this 
subject. It is, what after all is the distinctly recog- 
nized grand object of reassembling this Lambeth 
Conference ? "We are not in ignorance of what ob- 
ject it is ? I had the misfortune to be absent this 
morning on account of indisposition, and on coming 
into the House I asked whether the objects for 
which the Lambeth Synod is proposed to be recon- 
vened or reassembled had been mentioned on the 
fioor. I was told not. Therefore, if I go over the 
??round that has been already occupied, Mr, Presi- 
dent, I shall be glad to be cut short. I say v>^e are 
not left in doubt as to the object of this reassembling 
of the Lambeth Conference, because it has been dis- 
tinctly announced by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, 
cur most honored guest, in a speech of his in the 
Upper House of Convocation, which has been 
printed in our American papers, which I read — and 
I say it with great humility, and yet at the same time 
I feel compelled in this presence to say it — which I 
read with amazement ; which I read with astonish- 
ment ; for, sir, I think I am not mistaken in repre- 
senting the whole drift of that proposition to have 
been this : that there shoidd be erected a Patriarch- 
ate in name of the Church of the Anglican Com- 
munion in the person of the Archbishop of Can- 
terbury ; and if anybody thinks that this matter 
of first giving a title amounts to nothing, then I 
would suggest that he has not read church 
history with any great attention. A patriarchate 



i may mean nothir.g. I believe the Bishcp of Rone 
has sevei al palriarcl atcs, which are nothing br.t 
titular nonentities. To we want such persona'gf s in 
our Church as titular nonentities ? Is this the day 
when our Church has time to ccnsider mere titles of 
honor and precedent ? Would the Archbishop of 
Canterbury be more honored, more looked up to. 
or would he not rather be looked upon in this Churcri 
with greater disfavor, jealousy, end disatfection on 
account of the conferring of that title of Patriarcli- 
ate ?• These are things to be considered. 

Again, it was openly announced in Convccaticn 
by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield himself that it 
might in the end result from the Lambeth Confoi- 
ence, shortly to be reassembled, that we should have 
an ultimate Com t of Appeals in matters of doc- 
trine, to consist of the Patriarch of Canterbury and 
other personages resident in England. Would we 
like to have that ? Are we likely to want it ? I say 
nay, and this Church will say nay ; for, sir, this 
1 Church as a national unit among the Churches cf 
God can tolerate no authority over her save that of 
Christ, her head, and her own national authority. 

Now, Mr. President, is it well for us, in view-^ of 
these facts which I have recounted of the way in 
which the call may be made, of the manner in 
I which the programme may be laid out, of the re- 
j striction of the liberties of our Bishops in what 
i will profess to be a free conference, of the objects, 
j large as they are, of the most im^m^ense importance, 
I touching in the end the very foundation of cui' 
Church as laid down in her organic law and consti- 
tution — I ask, is it well for us to adopt indefinite 
resolutions of a gushing sort, or is it not better fer- 
ns to take the calm, the prudent, the dignified 
course vdiich has been laid out in the amendment 
proposed to the original resolution ? 

A^nd, Mr. President, I trust this matter may come 
before us from the House of Bishops. The "invita- 
tion has already doubtless been conveyed to them 
by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, M'hatever its fonn 
or terms may be. Doubtless, the Bishops will let 
us know what shape that has taken, what the pro- 
positions are likely to be. In short, I think they 
wiU communicate with us as the fa.thers to grown- 
up sons, and then, I think, we can intelligently, 
with all our hearts, with all the warmth of our na- 
tures, give to it our mcst cordial sanction, in hopes 
of their preparing the v/ay for another and a still 
larger Lambeth Conference. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. As to the 
remark of the learned and reverend Deputy from 
Alabama, that the original resolution is gushing, 
inasmuch as he has never heard it read or seen it, to 

my certain knowledge 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alaban^a. I have heard it 
repeated. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. No, sir ; 
becanse it is a long resolution, and I do not think 
anybody has committed it to memory. The gentle- 
man may have heard the substance. 

I am opposed to this amendment, lam sorry to 
say, for I should be glad in courtesy to accept it, if 
I could consistently. I am oppcsed to it because it 
is, not in the intention of the Deputy who offered it, 
but, intrinsically, meaningless. 'The House of 
Bishops have nothing to send to us. They have no 
information to give us. There is nothing that we 
can extract from the House of Bishops by any such 
amendmient as that which is proposed. The Lord 
Bishop of Lichfield has not conveyed the intimation 
to the House of Bishops, and will not. That is not 
the proposed order. The method for the assembling 
of this second session of the Lambeth Council is as 
follows : Intimations are given informally by the 
^ Archbishop of Canterbury that the idea of reassem- 
I bling is entertained. Those intimations are sent to 
different parts of the Chro'ch throughout the world, 



84 



and then, if they act upon that intimation and send 
back to the Archbishop, formally or informally, in 

any way they please, their response that an 
invitation to such a Conference would be gen- 
erally responded to, the invitation goes forth, 
and not till then. There have been memorials 
sent from Canada, and from various colonial 
Churches, up to the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury already, because this intimation of desire to 
hold a Conference went forth many months, if not 
a year or more ago. The memorials senWto the 
Archbishop requesting him to call it are in print 
and have been circulated throughout the world, and 
we are probably the only branch, if we may call 
ourselves a branch, of the Anglican Communion 
that has never yet taken any action in the premises. 
The House of Bishops here feel a degree of delicacy 
in acting upon the matter until they have some 
intimation from this House that such action would 
]je agreeable to us, not only upon the point 
which has been adverted to, that they do not 
like to elect themselves to an office or to a 
deputation the expenses of which may come from 
the laity or from the Church at large. On the con- 
trary, they feel that if there is a desire that they 
should occupy any such position, that desire should 
first be expressed on the part of those who probably 
will send them on their mission ; and I tliink that 
every ingenuous mind will appreciate at once the 
delicacy of their position in this regard ; and, there- 
fore, I have to say that there will no such sugges- 
tion come to us from the House of Bishops. They 
have no information to give us. 

The very learned Deputy from the Diocese of 
Alabama lias given us as full information upon one 
branch of the subject as we can possibly get through 
any one of the Bishops ; and so we have had from 
others who have spoken on this question informa- 
tion submitted here which I think ought by this 
time to inform the mind of the Convention on the 
whole subject, except certain matters which, I 
think, are matters of very grave mistake. 

Touching this idea of an organic unity, if you 
please, or the suggestions that were made by the Bi- 
shop of Lichfield in the Upper House of Convoca- 
tion, after aU, Mr. President, what are they but sug- 
gestions ? What are they but his individual opinion ? 
No action was taken in the Upper House of Convo- 
cation on this subject. It was merely the expression 
of an opinion of one of the Bishops ; and 
supposing he puts that opinion in form, 
and carries it into this second session of the pro- 
posed Council at Lambeth, they have no power to 
pass it ; they are not a representative body in 
any sense of delegation, of being sent formally 
or officially. It is merely a body that comes 
together informally for a comparison of views, 
and for the attempted adjustment of every- 
thing that needs righting throughout Christendom 
by moral force alone, and by the influential power 
that naturally pei-tains to their great office. 
But supposing they had the power and did 
create a patriarchate, the gentleman asks, would 
this Church accept it ? No; it certainly would not 
accept it. The representation from this Church 
would have no pov/er to act for us in that matter ; 
and if they came back here with the official record 
of any such decision in that Council of Lambeth, 
this Church would have the right to put its foot upon 
it. It would be perfectly free, untrammelled 
by any action that might be taken there. 
But I distinctly state that it has not been entertained 
in any quarter save the one to which reference has 
just now been made ; and in any quarter that is en- 
titled to grave consideration, it has not been pro- 
posed to do anjrthing that is either aggressive look- 
ing toward a patriarchate or that is organic looking 



I to any unity of this Church in any more ecclesiasti- 
cal relations than are now held. 

I want the members of the Convention to under- 
stand that this is not a pohtical question, nor is it so 
much a historic question, and I have in my mind, 
while listening to certain parts of this debate, depre- 
cated the allusion to the difficulty of obtaining* the 
Episcopate, because we know full well that the diffi- 
culties that environed the Church of England and 
the Church in this country at that time, owing 
to the political relationships as well as other 
causes, were such as made the obstacles 
great ; but we know that since that time every 
form of communion and fellowship and courtesy 
has been assumed by the Church of England towards 
us. If the record of all the years that have elapsed 
from that day to this is not sufficient to obliterate 
the recollection of any little difficulties that we en- 
countered then, centuries upon centuries, in the 
minds of some men, would not obliterate it. 

So do I deprecate the reference to the political re- 
lations between England and this country. Ail these 
ought to be buried so deep that nothing could ever 
resurrect them from their oblivion, so far as oui- 
moral sense and our personal relations and our na- 
tional intercoui'se are concerned. The great events 
that have occurred in the adjustment of national 
difficulties between England and this country, of a 
very recent date, are so fresh in the minds of us all 
that I scarcely, for one, have patience to listen to any- 
thing that goes behind or beyond them. On the con- 
trary, we are one in the sentiments that govern our 
hearts as freemen, as partakers of the same civiliza- 
tion, as, under God, enjoying the same blessings of 
His providence and the same blessings of His grace 
in the blessed communion of that Church which is 
one ill Christ Jesus ; and I want the members of 
this Convention to look at it from that stand- 
point. In this debate there should be no 
appeal to the excited passions of men, 
touching matters of record, either in ecclesi- 
astical or political history. On the contrary, 
it is a question of the communion of saints in 
Christ Jesus. I, if I am a member of Christ here in 
New York, am a member jji London, as a gentle- 
•man said to me to-day in private conversation, or in 
Jerusalem, and to the end of the earth ; and wher- 
ever I find the organization of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church, I not only feel that there I am bound 
together by the common doctrines that make us one 
in that Christ, but in that formal, visible fold where 
we have aroimd us the same defences and substan- 
tially above us the same divine segis of protection. 

I therefore submit that all these "Gorgonsand 
chimeras dire " that have by the splendid Hotspurs 
in debate been "summoned from the vasty deep" 
of their imaginations be laid to rest. I would exor- 
cise this Convention from all these spectres and 
phantasms that have been depicted upon the curtain 
of the future in such felicitous phrases by the dis- 
tinguished Clerical Deputies from Connecticut and 
Massachusetts. These things are only born of men's 
fears. They are only the creations of men's 
fancies. I am prepared to say that there has not 
been submitted to this House by either of those 
gentlemen an argument that is based upon facts as 
they are, or arguments that are based upon the 
analogies of history or arguments that can have 
any fair showing when a proper opportunity has 
presented for holding them up in the clear light of 
truth, as that truth reflects upon them from every 
side. 

I am exceedingly sorry, as I said before, that 
this debate has rim into such wide extremes ; but 
since questions have come up, in God's name, let us 
meet them, and do not let us at all attempt to stifle 
the expression of the sentiments of this Convention 
upon this subject. I think the most of the issues 



85 



of this debate are false ones. I think the s.'mple 
question is that of the original resoliition. 
1 am not in favor of the suggestion made by the 
Deputy from New York [Mr. Faiggles], proposing 
that if we do send the Bishops over there we shall 
send them trammelled, harnessed from head to foot 
with conditions and limitations. We cannot trust 
them to go over unless they are swathed almost in 
grave-clothes, so that they can scarcely utter speech 
or make a motion ! 

I am not in favor of the amendment of the Cleri- 
cal Deputy from Central Pennsylvania. That pro- 
poses to send it to the Bishops for them to tell us 
what all this means, and for them to tell us what 
has been submitted to them, when we know that 
nothing has been submitted to them, and that noth- 
ing will be submitted to them, and that the only 
possible course of proced/ore is that which is pro- 
posed in the original resolution, and that if 
you carry that amendment it is just the same 
as negativing the whole idea ; it is just 
the sam^e as saying, "We will have nothing to 
do with this proposed Council of Bishops ; we are 
afraid to trust our right reverend fathers to go over 
and sit in the company of the prelates of the Eng- 
lish Church." Why, sir, the Deputy fi'om Massa- 
chusetts said that the Church of England would 
overwhelm us. Overwhelm this colossus of the 
American Church ! No, sir ; we have reached such 
dimensions that I do not feel any fear of any sister 
church, or mother chm-ch, or grandfather church. 
[Laughter.] 

If the argTiment of the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts was good as against this Pan-Anglican 
Council, this Lambeth Conference, it is good against 
aU the Primitive Councils. V/hy, sir, the7f were 
willing in a Primitive Council to let one Bishop act 
as the presiduig officer over other Bishops coming 
from other sees and provinces ; and I can- 
not conceive myself that it is possible to 
have a Conference or a Synod without a 
presiding officer ; and I certainly imderstand that 
the proper person to preside is he who by reason 
of the seniority of his special Church organization, 
if you choose, or by reason of his seniority of con- 
secration, or by reason of his exaltation by peculiar 
office, shoiild be permitted to occupy the seat. I do 
not see that that iu the shghtest degree trenches upon 
the liberties of any other members who are sitting 
with him as prelates in the same Council. 

I cannot for the bfe of me see anything in these 
ideas that have been presented to us to frighten us 
away from this proposed deputation to the second 
Lambeth Conference. It seems to me that the ar-. 
guments are so unimportant that by the pricking of 
a pin you could let out — no, I will not say what is in 
them. [Laughter.] I beg to submit, therefore, for 
the consideration of the House, that they vote 
upon the original proposition, simple and pure. 
There is no departure from it that does not 
involve us in complication. The effect of sending 
the matter back to the House of Bishops under the 
amendment proposed by the Deputy from Central 
Pennsylvania, amounts in fact to negativiag the 
whole thing. I do not believe that is his in- 
tention ; I know from what he said that it is not his 
iatention ; but it amounts to that practically; and 
I therefore invoke my good friends of the clergy 
and laity that they will either vote it down iipon a 
square issue or carry it in its original form. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. President, 
I wiU not answer my reverend brother from Long 
Island, so far as his poetry is concerned. I do not 
deem myself competent to answer that. I have 
become too old to be a poet or to have much poetry 
in my composition. I deal with plain matters of 
fact. 

He proposes that we should put in a 



pin or a needle. I will do it for him. 

i 1 v.- ill ask him a question, and I want the 
I gentlemen of this House to understand his answer, 
i He says he belongs to the Church Catholic, and if 
I he goes to England he is as much a member of the* 
i Church Catholic there, and is entitled to and would 
i receive aU the privileges there that he receives 
j here. Novv^, let me ask my brother, suppose he 
I goes, or a Bishop of this Church goes there, and 
1 wants to spend a mouth there, and would 
i like to preach during that month, has he 
I the right to do it ? Has he, as a Priest 
I or a Bishop of J;his American Church, a right to do 
it ? No, sir. iTou have a certaui permission of 
! Parliament. On application to the Bishop of the 
Diocese where you are to officiate, you ai'e permitteel 
I to appear once or twice, and then you have to shut 
I up your mouth. Stick a pin there yom self , if you 

please, sir. [Laughter.] 
i Now, another thing : You talk of the Church of 
i England askhig us. They have not asked. We 
I have nothing before us from the Bishop of Lichfield 
' or any other man that would warrant oin- legisla- 
I tion on this subject. No person has asked us yet. 
j Wait till they ask, and then it will be time enough 

for us to decide the question. 
I But I want to call the attention of one branch of 
I this House to the fact that the laity have no voice 
I in the affairs of the Church of Englanel. The Eng- 
! hsh Government have ; Parliament have ; but the 
I laity have none. Suppose one of you goes there as 
j a layman of this General Convention, after voting 
! for anything of this kind, they will treat you as a 
I gentleman, but they will not recognize you as a 
! legislator by any means. I tell you we are not at 
j all on an equality, and I therefore must contend, 
i as I did in the former speech that I made, 
j that until the Chm'ch of England is free as we are 
I from the influence of the state, until the Church of 
j England has what she is longing to have, the per- 
! mission to bring laymen into her councils, diocesan 
I and otherwise, to legislate for her — mitil that day 
! an-ives, it comes with an ill grace from any indi- 
i vidual in theii' behalf, not themselves, to ask 
j us not merely to permit but to urge on our 
! Bishops to go there to be bluffed off, or else, 
"Humble servant to your Lordship, wiU you 
1 permit me to preach in your cathecb'al to-morrow ? " 
i i do not want a presbyter to be placed in that p-osi- 
j tion, and God forbid that I should lift up my 
j voice to place a Bishop of the Chm^ch in that posi- 
tion, or that I should expect laymen to sustain such 
a resolution for a Church in which they are treated 
as a mass of nobodies in the Church, except to sup- 
port it. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Mr. President. 
I wish to say that with regard to this subject I think 
there has been a great deal of leamiug and know- 
ledge and principle shown by my old friend from 
the Diocese of Connecticut, by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, by the gentleman from Alabama, 
and above all by the distinguished layman of whose 
presence we all are proud from the Diocese of New 
York (Mr. Ruggies), and i think that to-morrow 
what these men have said will fly convincingly 
over all this Union. But in looking at 
this orignal proposal, and in looking at the amend- 
ment which the gentleman from Central Pennsylva- 
nia has moved to it, I see that both the original pro- 
posal and this amendment do not express what I dis- 
tinctly and clearly understand to be the feehng 
of this Chm'ch and also of the members of this great 
National Council. I therefore take the hberty of 
proposing, as I beheve I have the power to do, an 
amendment to the whole question. I can do that, 
i believe. 

The PRESIDENT. There is only one amendment 
pending. An amendment can be offered to that. 



86 



Rev. "Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I propose to 
malce an amendment which I think will express the 
power of the arguments that have been brought 
forward by these gentlemen, and I think it will 
carry conviction at once. [" Read it."] I shall read 
it, but I may take my own time to read it, I think. 
[Laughter.] I will read this amendment, and then 
speak a few words in its favor : 

■"Resolved, That we hereby desire the reassem- 
bling of the Lambeth Conference." 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I ask the gen- 
tleman's permission to make a motion that the ses- 
sion be prolonged to half-past four, because 
otherwise our adjournniont will be here in two 
minutes. 

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman give way 
to that motion 

Mr, WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The difficuity is 
that there are engagements at four. 

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman give 
way ? 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Yes, sir. 
The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the House 
sit until half -past four o'clock to-day. 
The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. My proposition 
is : 

"Resolved, That we hereby desire the reassem- 
bling of the Lambeth Conference, and we hope that 
our Bishops personally may attend according to the 
best of their judgment ; and, v/hen offering this ex- 
pression of opinion, we hereby, the House of Cleri- 
cal and Lay Deputies, most solemnly and emphati- 
cally declare that the Church in these United 
States is not in any sense a member or branch of 
the_ Anglican Communion, but is a Sister Church 
which, in our faith and belief, is in future to be the 
Church of the whole people of this great land ; and 
we request the Bishops of our Church who attend 
the second Lambeth Conference to take their stand 
most distinctly upon this ground." 

Now, Mr. President, I wish to say a few words. 
In the first place, I am proud of the Lambeth Con- 
ference and of the attendance of our Bishops upon 
it. I think that they did perfectly right, and I give 
them nothing but applause for doing it. Therefore, 
in speaking on my own behalf, and putting my 
words into the mouths of the members, clerical and 
lay, of this Convention, I cannot in any way blame 
the Lambeth Conference, or any one that attended 
upon it. It has been productive of good, and of un- 
mixed good, and, therefore, I think that, when the 
Bishops are invited, it is not only their business and 
great pleasure, but their duty also, to attend, ac- 
cording to the best of their own judgments per- 
sonally. 

But we have been told that power, when it begins, 
never fails to increase itself. There w-as, before this 
time, a personal invitation to the Bishops of our 
Church to go to the Lambeth Conference. We, the 
House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, had nothing at 
ail to do with it. Now, as I understand from the 
(listinguished Lay Deputy from Massachusetts, 
there has an intimation come dovm from the House of 
Bishops that if we, the House of Clerical and Lay Dep- 
uties, express an opinion it would be very gratifying 
indeed. Mr. President, I am for expressing an opin- 
ion, and a very distinct opinion, as you know ; but 
the opinion which shall go in to form the basis for 
first being received, then being summoned, and 
then finally the whole thing being cumulated into a 
position which we do not admire and cannot take 
as a national Church, I do not believe in; and, 
therefore, I wish, as they have indicated their de- 
sire that we should give an opinion, that we should 
give an opinion. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Coimecticut. Thev cannot I 



ask for it except by the House of Bishops sendicg a 
message to us. 

The Rev. Dr. ADiNMS, of Wisconsin. I am re- 
ferring to the speech of Dr. Sliattuck. 

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I cowld 
tell another story from the House of Bishops, but I 
prefer not to do it. I have a different story from 
that, however, but it is not my business to tell it. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I would say cox- 
other thing in regard to the Church in EnglaBxl. 
There is no man in this Council who has a higher re- 
spect for our dear Mother Church of England, but I 
rnake one great distinction. The English state, that 
is to say, the English G overnment, in its action upon 
our Church previously, and in its action upon the 
Church of England at present, I by no means re- 
spect, I say that for two hundred years that 
English state kept us without Bishops, without 
Council, without cathedrals, without anything 
that belonged to a Church. Any one c£ 
us that desired to be confirmed or or- 
dained had to go to London. We were crushed into 
the shape of an unconnected mass of Congregational 
minisijers, having no bond of union v^hatsoever, 
and that Congregationalism which the hardness of 
the English state towards its own English commimi- 
cants settled in these colonies has come 
down to us in the traditional Congregational- 
ism that is on us at this day and torments 
lis all — clergy and laity, bishops"^ ard ministeis. 
I have no respect for that Government in its ecclesi- 
astical operations, which, within the last ten years, 
laid its strong claw upon the property of the Irish 
Church, and which, to this day, as they profess in 
Parliament, can take every morsel of property 
from the English Church, if it simply chooses 
to do so, because the English Govern- 
ment has a doctrine which we have not 
— the doctr-ine of the oninipoteiice of Parliament. 
Parliament can do anything it pleases iir the way of 
property rights. In the debates on that Irish bill, 
when some oue told one of those lawj-ers, "^ou 
dare not do that to a Dissenting denoniination," he 
said, "You make a mistake ; we can take the prop- 
erty of Disserrters iitst as much as we can take the 
property of the Irish Church." 

Sii', I have no respect whatever for the Englif^b 
Government in its relation to the English Chirrcb. 
What does this English Government do now ? It 
simply has the English Church tied up hand and 
foot. They cannot act ; they can pass no law. 
They m.ay 'deliberate and speak, but they can do 
nothing. What is the use, then, of tying a living 
body to a dead ? What is the use of us 
making any sort of organic union with 
a Church that is in that shape ? It is 
of no use at all except what ? Except for an ex- 
treme conservative use, I say it is dead, without a 
pulse, or hands or feet, so that if we propose any- 
thing here in this Amei-icarr Church, and you have 
an organic union established in any way, a rnan 
who is extremely conservative can get up and say, 
"This question has been decided by the whole An- 
glican Church." No, sir, the whole Anglican 
Church will not come to any decision upon it. 

I, therefore, in reference to these matters simply 
gather together the conclusions that I have come to 
from the speeches of the four distinguished men 
whom I have mentioned. I think that we can ap- 
prove of the Lambeth Conference, of its meeting, of 
the assembling of our Bishops with that Conference 
personally as men and gentlemen and Christians, 
and at the same time we can take their chance of 
cutting away the last Seating fragment of 
the wreck of Anglicanism in this country ; that is to 
say, the feeling that somehow or other, we do not 
know how, we are members of the English Church, 
members of the Anglican Communion, For my- 



87 



self, I must honestly say that I beliove in an ulti- 
mate result. I believe that in the course of 
time, and not a very long time, our organ- 
ization will be perfected, our Bishops, our 
clergy, our laity will rise in faith, in doc- 
trine,' in holiness, in purity of life, till 
the whole mass of this great American people shall 
look upon us and say : " These men, this organiza- 
tion, this institution which hitherto under a mistake 
wo have called the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
the Anglican Conmiunion is the American Catholic 
Church of this great land from the great peaceful 
ocean to the Atla,ntic, from the north to the south." 
Therefore, sir, in order to make this matter more 
distinct, I move this resolution of mine. 

Mr. MEIG-S, of New Jersey. Mr. President, I do 
not propose to occupy more than about a minute 
on this question, and it is for the purpose of at- 
tejnptin.gto correct what I conceive to be a miscon- 
ception of the IgLnguage of the original resolution. 
It seems to me that all the misapprehension in this 
body in regard to dangers in the future results 
from overlooking the fact that the language of the 
i-esolution contains no consent, no a^pproval to the 
House of Bishops to do anything more than to 
engage in e. Conference. If the movement is to take 
the form of a Sjmod or anything looking to an 
organic change, the resolution does not authorize it 
at all. K it "is a Conference, this body if it passes 
this resolution will approve of our Bishops' meeting 
in that Conference, but if it is a Synod the Bishops 
if they go there go without the provision of this 
body. Iherefore I do not see any of the dangers 
v/hich have been so vividly protrayed by gentle- 
men in reference to this movement. Merely for the 
purpose of saving time I draw attention to that 
point, 

Kev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
was so uncertain as to whether Dr. Adams was in 
earnest or in joke that I will not presume at this 
time to dwell even on the argument he presented. 
I ask the courtesy of the House only for a mo- 
ment or two while I return my thanks to 
the Deputy from Long- Island for the very 
courteous manner in which he pronounced my 
amendment entirely meaningless. It was a 
sharp saying very' softly said. Sir, it is not 
meaningless. It had a definite purpose, and I think 
it will appear to the House that its purpose amounts 
to something. It Vv^^as so worded carefully as to ex- 
press most courteously our respect and interest for 
the intimation that had been given us by the Lord 
Bishop of Lichfield of a purpose or proposal to 
invite the Bishops of this Chm*ch to a 
future Lambeth Conference ; but it was at 
the same time so worded that while it 
expressed that interest, it refused to bind us defi- 
nitely in any important action or in any m.anner to 
a question so important, while it remained in its 
indefinite and uncertain form. It was, further, so ■ 
worded that it intimated to the House of Bishops 
our desire that, as soon as they shall have received 
any definite information themselves or an^^ due in- 
vitation, they shall communicate to us their own 
iinowledge iii the matter and enable us to act vv^ith 
certainty. The proposition was not intended, and I 
think this House will not take it as meant, to express 
our opinion as opposed to a reassembling of the 
Ijambeth Conference, but only to take this position, 
that we are not prepared to act upon so momentous 
a question, while it is yet entirely indefinite, unsat- 
isfactory, and apparently far in the future. I ask 
for the reading of my amendment. 

The PRESIDENT. The amendment wiU bo read. 

The Secretary read the amendment of Rev. Dr. 
Paret. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I wish to intro- 
duce a substitute for the matter now before House. 



j Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
rise to a question of order. There are two amend- 
ments already before the House. Can a third be 
proposed. 

The PRESIDENT. A substitute can be proposed. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. My proposition in 
in this form : 

"Resolved, That all exchange of friendly greet- 
ings, all evidences of the existence of the miity of 
the spirit in the bond of peace between the Church 
of England and this Church in America, vrhether by 
Bishops in conference or otherwise, are especially 
welcome to this body. " 

The objections raised to either of the preceding 
propositions seem to me very great, but this in my 
mind is so worded that we throw ourselves to the 
world open as in harmony with the English Church 
so far as doctrines and intercommunication are con- 
cerned, but that we commit ourselves to no organic 
union whatever. If this Conference is sunnnoned, 
and our Bishops go there, they go for the inter- 
change of friendly sentiments, and for the good of 
the Church, not committing us to anything be- 
yond. That is aE. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I second that. 

Rev. Dr. SULLIVAN, of Illinois. Mr. President, 
I think the large majority of this House are proba- 
bly in favor of something in the shape of a Con- 
ference between the Bishops of this Church and the 
Bishops of the English Church — a conference for 
mutual consultation and communion — and no one 
who looks at it merely in this preliminary light ca^i 
for a moment question that great benefit must 
result. 

i Great emphasis has been laid in this House on tho 
potentialities, as they are called, of the future, the 
possible dangers that may come back to us from the 
communion of our Bishops with the Bishops of tho 
English Church. In other words, there are some gen- 
tlemen here who seem to be defective altogether in 
the confidence they have in the wisdom and pru- 
dence and discretion of their own Bishops if they 
should possibly come in contact with the supposed 
larger v/isdom and broader experience of the Bishops 
of the English Church. I think, sir, we are ready to 
claim for the Bishops of our own Church at least 
an equal measm^e of all these good qualities with that 
possessed by the rulers of the Church on the other side 
of the Atlantic ; and to counterbalance that idea of 
the iDossible dangers that may come back to us, 
there is another side of the question altogether 
which has never been alluded to. The 
subject was indirectly referred to in a 
conversation, very brief, between myself and 
a venerable Archdeacon who has no voico 
in this House, but who I wish had a voice here, for 
he would give better expression to the idea than I 
possibly can, namely this : Is it not more than pos- 
sible that through the communion of the American 
Church with the representatives of the Anglican, 
a large measure of benefit, moral and spiritual, 
may be conveyed to them, and through them as its 
representatives to the whole body of the 
Anglican Communion in England ? That 
I Chmxh. at the present moment is, as is 
I well Imown, in a peculiar transition pro- 
cess. That process has already been passed through 
by the Church in Ireland. Tha-t Church has been 
disestabh'shed and disendowed. That Church is now 
in a condition of new life and vigor and energy in 
consequence of having passed through that process. 
It was thought a.t the first it would be a pecu- 
liarly dangerous one ; but even alrea.dy, within 
the "brief time that has elapsed since then, 
that Church has become more than ever the Church 
of the aif ections of the people, and those aliections 
have found for themselves large and Mineral and 
substantial expression. 



88 



Now, it is held by a great many deep thinkers, 
men who have some foreknowledge apparently of 
the future, that the Church in England is doomed 
to pass through the same process sooner or later. 
It is perfectly true that Mr. Gladstone just at the 
present moment disavows the idea. He repudiates 
having for the present any intention of severing 
the bond that unites the Church to the state, but he 
does so, as is well known, only because the time has 
not yet come, because public sentiment in England 
is not yet suiFiciently educated up to the point. 
When that time comes, the Church in England, like 
the Church in Ireland, will be set free from all 
shackles of state legislation, and will be able, as she 
ought to be able, to do her own work for Christ in 
the world. 

Now, sir, if I am any judge of the potentialities of 
the future — ^because the potentialities apply in 
the direction of good as well as of evil — I am strongly 
of the opinion that if anything could possibly give 
an impulse to that transitional movement which is 
already beginning to show itself in England in the 
direction of the disentanglement of the 
Church from the entanglements of state 
enactments, such a movement will be largely im- 
pelled and propelled by the powerful influence of 
the tliought and life and energy of the representa- 
tive men of the American Church coming in con- 
tact with the representatives of the Church across 
the water. We must not think merely of the 
possibility of seeing harm to ourselves, but the 
nobler possibility of communicating good to others. 

On this ground, as well as on others already al- 
luded to, I think the general question of the expedi- 
ency of some form of Conference between our 
Bishops and the Bishops yonder must be very gen- 
erally assented to ; but then there is another question 
with regard to the action of this House at the pres- 
ent moment with regard to this Conference. You 
will have observed that, in the statements already 
made, the most that has been said is that probably 
there will be another Pan- Anglican Conference. It 
is merely an intimation that has been conveyed by 
the Hight Rev. the Lord Bishop of Lichfield. No 
formal proposition has been made to this House cer- 
tainly, and so far as we know no formal proposition 
or invitation has been made to the House of Bish- 
ops. It seems to me that it is quite time enough for 
this House to take action upon a proposition which is 
made to us, when that proposition is really made, and 
that we are altogether premature in taking any ac- 
tion on the matter now. It seems to me, moreover, 
that when that proposition is made, it will be made 
not to this House, but to the House of Bishops, and 
it seems to me that it is highly proper for the House of 
Bishops to act upon an invitation given to them, but 
not for us to act upon it. If I receive an invitation 
I act upon it. My friend sitting beside me does not 
take action in the matter at all ; he has nothing to 
do with it. This is a matter belonging altogether to 
the House of Bishops ; and moreover if the Bishops 
in this matter are willing to receive instruction, or 
counsel, or advice from any one's hands, it seems to 
me that inasmuch as the invitation, when it does 
come, is to come to them, not in their collective capa- 
city as a House, but merely to them as individual 
men representing the Church, they will have to act 
upon it as individual men, and any instructions or 
counsel they may feel at liberty, or may deem it 
expedient to receive, must be received, not 
from this collective representation of the 
Church, but from their individual dioceses. 

It is they who have to act upon it in connection 
with the Bishops as individual men ; and therefore 
it seems to me for the present altogether premature 
for this House to take any action, but rather to 
leave the matter over in accordance VN^ith the terms 
of the amendment to the original resolution, pro- 



posed by the reverend members from Central Penn- 
sylvania. It seems to me entirely proper that the 
matter should be relegated to the House of Bishops 
for their individual action upon it. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I move 
that this subject be postponed until to-morrow at 
two o'clock, when a vote shall be taken without 
fm^ther debate, for it is now within two minutes of 
the time of adjournment, and w^e shall not have 
time to take the vote. 

The PRESIDENT. We have five minutes yet. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I have an- 
other remark to make, and that is to say that if the 
question is postponed until to-morrow, members 
will have an opportunity of reading these amend- 
ments, and comparing them, and of coming 
to a deliberate conclusion. The amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from Central 
Pennsylvania merely puts oii consideration, and the 
matter will go up to the House of Bishops, and 
come back to us, and then we shall have to vote 
upon it, while the other proposition, the amend- 
ment of the gentleman from Texas is substantially 
the same as the original resolution. If you com- 
pare them together you will find that they scarcely 
vary a particle. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Then I hope the 
gentleman will accept the amendment. We cer- 
tainly know as much about this case now as we ever 
shall. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I withdraw 
my motion. 

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas 
[Rev. Mr. Rogers], which will be read. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

" Resolved, That all exchanges of friendly greet- 
ing, all evidences of the existence of the unity of 
the spirit in the bond of peace between the Church 
of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
America, whether by Bishops in conference or 
otherwise, are specially welcome to this Church. 

" Resolved, That the foregoing resolution be com- 
municated to the House of Bishops as a message from 
this House. " 

The substitute was adopted, there being, on a di- 
vision — Ayes, 108; Noes, 9G. 

The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the 
adoption of the resolution as amended by this sub- 
stitute. 

The resolution as amended was adopted. 

COMMITTEE SERVICE. 

The PRESIDENT. Rev. Dr. Mead retires from 
the Committee of Conference relating to the 
Church in Canada. That leaves the Rev. Dr. 
Rudder as Chairman, and I name Rev. Dr. Foote, 
of Western New York, upon that Committee. 

Chief -Justice Waite, of Ohio, has left the city, and 
will not be again in the Convention. He has given 
me notice to that effect, and I appoint Mr. Hazie- 
hurst, of Pennsylva.nia, in his place upon the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution. 

From the Cominittee on the State of the Church, 
Rev. Dr. Beach, of New York, retires and requests 
that R.ev. Dr. George Jarvis Geer, from the same 
Diocese, a Provisional Deputy, be appointed in his 
place. I make that appointment. 

The hour of adjournment has arrived, and the 
House stands adjourned until to-morrow at t^n 
o'clock A.M. 



SIXTH DAY. 

Tuesday, October 13. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel, at 
ten A.M. 

Morning Prayer was begim by Rev, William H. 



8§ 



Clarke, of Georgia. The Lessons were read by- 
Rev. Samuel Chase, d.d., of Illinois. The Creed and 
Prayers were said by Rev. John B. Wakefield, d.d., 
of Indiana, who also pronounced the Benediction. 

The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read 
and approved. 

SUPPLEMENTARY DELEGATES. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of E;entncky. On beTialf of 
the Committee on Elections, I respectfully report 
that due evidence has been received of the appoint- 
ment of Mr. John Deveraux as supplementary Dep- 
uty from the Diocese of Ohio, in place of Mr. Mor- 
rison R. Waite, and of the Rev. Ceorge Jarvis Geer, 
D.D., a suppleiiientary Deputy from the Diocese of 
New York, in place of the Rev. Benjamin I. Haight, 
D.D., LL.D. ; that the names of these Deputies have 
been given to the Secretary, and entered upon the 
roll of the House. 

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina, In the 
absence of the Chairman I have been requested to 
make two reports from the Committee on Canons : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom were re- 
ferred certain resolutions relating to Canon 4 of Title 
II., respectfully report that they have considered 
the same, and recommend that the third section of 
Canon 4 of Title II. be amended by leaving out 
these words, ' If any rector or assistant minister 
shall refuse to comply with the recommendation of 
the Bishop and Presbyters, ' and inserting the follow- 
ing : ' If the Bishop approve the recommendation 
of the Presbyters, and if the rector or assistant 
minister shall refuse to comply with the require- 
ment of the Bishop made in pursuance of such re- 
commendation,' so that the whole section may read 
as in the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That Section 3, of Canon 4, of Title II., be amend- 
ed, so as to read as follows : 

" Sec. 3. If the Bishop approve the recommenda- 
tion of the Presbyters, and if the rector or assistant 
minister shall refuse to comply with the require- 
ment of the Bishop made in pursuance of such re- 
commendation, the Bishop shall proceed to forbid 
him the exercise of any ministerial f miction within 
the Diocese until he shall retract his refusal. Or, if 
the vestry or congregation shall refuse to comply 
with any such recommendation, they shall not be 
allowed any representation in the Diocesan Conven- 
tion until they shall have retracted their refusal." 

The PRESlDExN'T. The report will be placed on 
the Calendar. 

ORGANIZATION OF NEW DIOCESES. 

The Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina, sub- 
mitted the following report : 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
a proposed amendment to Section 2, of Canon 6, 
of Title III., relating to the organization of new 
Dioceses, respectfully report that they have con- 
sidered the same, and recommend the adoption 
thereof, as contained in the following resolution : 

' ' Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring) , 
That Section 2, of Canon 6, of Title III., be amend- 
ed so as to read as follows : 

" Sec. 2, In case there should be no Bishop who can 
call such Primary Convention pursuant to the fore- 
going provision, then the duty of calling such Con- 
vention for the purpose of organizing, and the duty 
of fixing the time and place of its meeting, shall be 
vested in the Standing Committee of the Diocese 
within the limits of which the new one is to be 
erected, or of the Standing Committee of the eldest 
of the Dioceses by the junction of which, or parts of 
which, the new Diocese may be formed ; and such 
standing Committee shall make such call immedi- 



ately after the ratification of a division by the Gen- 
eral Convention," 

The PRESIDENT, The resolution will be placed 
on the Calendar. 

REMOVAL OF COMMUNICANTS. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I have a fur- 
ther report from the Committee on Canons : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was re- 
ferred a proposed amendment to Section 1 of Canon 
12 of Title II., so as to require a certificate to be 
produced by every communicant upon his removal 
from one parish to another, and forbidding any 
rector to receive a communicant without such let- 
ter or certificate, respectfully report that they have 
considered the same, and are of opinion that it is in- 
expedient. They therefore recommend the adop- 
tion of the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the further consideration of the 
proposed amendment to Section 1 of Canon 12 of 
Title II. of the Digest." 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution wiU be placed 
on the Calendar. 

EXPENSES— TREASURER. 

Rev. Dr. CRANE, of Mississippi, from the Com- 
mittee on Expenses, submitted the following re- 
port : 

"Tjie Committee on Expenses report that, having 
examined the accounts of the Treasurer, they find 
them accurate and duly vouched : 

Total receipts, $13,526 95 

Expenditures, 13,094 61 

Leaving balance on hand, . . . 432 34 

" The Committee take pleasure in recognizing the 
liberality and interest shown by the Treasurer in 
honoring the drafts made in favor of the Conven- 
tion, even during the period of financial distress 
and lack of confidence, so that every obligation of 
the Convention has been met promptly, and consid- 
erable advantages have resulted to the Convention 
from its ability to make cash payments. The Com- 
mittee unanimously nominate the present Treasurer 
for re-election. 

"Your Committee olTer the following resolutions : 

"Resolved, That the Treasurer of this Conven- 
tion be instructed to reserve five hundred dollars, to 
be subject to the call of the Presiding Bishop, for 
the payment of such expenses as may be incurred 
by him in the discharge of the duties incident to 
his oflice during the next three years. 

"Resolved. That the Treasurer be instructed to 
pay to the Secretary of the House of Clerical and 
Lay Deputies the sum of seven hundred and fifty 
dollars, and to the Secretary of the House of Bish- 
ops the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars. 

"Resolved, That in case the assessment of three 
dollars for each clergyman, as provided by Canon 
for the Payment of the Incidental Expenses of the 
Convention, should be found insufiicient for that 
pui-pose, the Secretary of this House and the 
Treasurer jointly are hereby authorized and directed 
to make such additional assessment on the Dioceses 
respectively, and the Treasurer to collect the same, 
as may be found necessary for the pajnnent of such 
expenses. 

" Resolved, That we gratefully recognize the 
liberality of Trinity Church in its provision for the 
welfare, comfort, and convenience of the members 
of this Convention, whereby the facilities of doing 
our work have been so amply provided and our ex- 
penses so materially reduced. 

"WM. C. CRANE, Chairman." 

The PRESIDENT. The resolutions will be placed 
on the Calendar, 



90 



ELECTION OF TREASURER. 

Rev. Dr. CRANE, of Mississippi. I suggest that 
the election of Treasurer be proceeded with. The 
Committee unanimously nominate the present 
Treasurer for re-election. 

The PRESIDENT. It is proposed that the present 
Treasurer, Mr. Nathan Matthews, be re-elected. 

Rev. Dr. KNICKERBACKER, of Minnesota. I 
move that the ballot be dispensed with. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the re- 
election of Mr. Matthews as Treasurer. 
Mr. Matthews was elected unanimously. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

Rev. Dr. BROWN, of Albany. Rev. Dr. Payne, 
of Albany, asks leave of absence for two or three 
days to attend to imperative parochial duties. 

Leave was granted. 

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Ai'kansas. Mr. President, 
the matter to which I propose to call the attention 
of this Convention is stated very briefly in the 
written petition I have to present, and 1 sincerely 
hope that it may pass without debate. I have no 
idea of bringing on a debate upon the question ot 
the reference of this petition. Really it comes 
somewhat in the form of a letter addressed to the 
House of Bishops on a subject in which we are all 
very deeply interested. I am anxious, therefore, 
for the reference of this paper, and I will say be- 
fore reading it that I believe, if it can be at once 
referred to the House of Bishops, it will probably 
succeed in doing some good. Here is the petition, 
and I shall take the privilege of reading it — 

The PRESIDENT. The rule I do not think allows 
the petition to be read unless the House takes some 
action upon it. It is for the person who presents it 
to state concisely the contents of it. 

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. If you vvdll 
allow the reading of the petition first, then you can 
determine the necessary action to follow. 

The PRESIDENT. If the gentleman wiU turn to 
Rule No. 27 he will see: 

"When memorials or petitions are presented, 
their contents shall be concisely stated by the Dep- 
uty presenting them,^ and they shall be referred or 
laid upon the table, unless, by a majority vote, the 
memorial or petition shall be ordered to "be read. " 

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. It is very 
brief, and I will ask the privilege of reading it. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move that the 
member presenting the petition be permitted to 
have it read. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. If the rule of 
the House is to be continually interfered with on 
the part of gentlemen who assure us that their 
petitions are very brief, I think we shall have no 
petitions here but brief ones in their estimation, 
and I hope that, unless the matter is one very- 
peculiar, it will not be allowed to pass beyond the 
ordiiiary rule which affects other petitions or 
memorials. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that Mr. Trimble, 
of Arkansas, have leave to read a petition or memo- 
rial from that Diocese, as I understand it to be. 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
I submit whether the rule does not require that the 
gentleman shall state the subject of his petition be- 
fore the House is called upon to pass on that ques- 
tion. 

The PRESIDENT. I believe it does. 

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Ai'kansas. I will state 
the object I have in view. I am only sorry that I 
cannot read the paper in full ; I am very anxious 
just now on that subject. It is somewhat in the 
form of a letter to the House of Bishops, by the 



Clergy and Laity of the House of Deputies, in refer- 
ence to the ritual usages of the Church, proposing 
to lay this matter of ritual directly before the House 
of Bishops, and ask them to decide somewhat on the 
j matter ; not to discuss the whole question here, but 
i to lay the responsibility where it belongs, at the 
door of the House of Bishops. It is addressed to the 
House of Bishops. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. What have 
we to do with a petition to the House of Bishops ? 
If the gentleman from Arkansas has a petition to 
the House of Bishops, let him present it to the 
House of Bishops. Does he want us to make that 
our petition ? 

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. That is just 
what i want. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. That is not 
going to be done without a great deal of debate, I 
can tell him. There is a great deal of opposition to 
that. He is perfectly free to make his'^ petition to 
the House of Bishops without troubling us, and ask- 
ing this large body to go to work and sanction all 
that he has been doing down there. [Laughter.] 
I Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. I assure you 
! that I have been doing this on my own responsibil- 
i itv and not from the Diocese of Arkansas. 
1 The PRESIDENT. Has the Deputy any motion 
i to make in reference to his petition ^ 
i Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. It is as fol- 
! lows : 

I "Resolved by the House of Clerical and Lay Dep- 
j uties, That the foregoing address be forwarded at 

once to the House of Bishops." 
! Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. I rise to a 
{ point of order. Tlia,t is a petition in which the gen- 
1 tleman asks the concurrence of this House, that we 
shall address a memorial to the House of Bishops. I 
submit, as a point of order, that it should be a me- 
morial to this House. It is not a memorial to this 
House, and therefore I submit that the gentleman is 
out of order in presenting it here. 

The PRESIDENT. I think that exception is well 
taken, and I endeavored to show to the member 
from Ai'kansas yesterday that he could not possibly 
accomplish his object in this House in the way in 
which he proposed to do it. The point just made 
! will supersede the motion for the reading of the 
i memorial. It is evidently not a memorial to this 
i House, but business proposed for the action of this 
1 House by the Deputy from Arkansas, and must 
I take its usual course. 

i Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. Very weU. 
! The PRESIDENT. It is out of order when we 
I are calling for petitions and memorials, 
i Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. I ask that it 
I be placed on the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman can offer his 

resolution by and by, when the proper time comes. 

At present we are receiving petitions and memorials. 

ADOPTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I ask permis- 
sion to make a report at this time from the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution. 

The PRESIDENT. H there be no objection, the 
Chair will receive it. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution beg leave to 
report that they met on Saturday, the 10th of Octo- 
ber, and organized by appointing Mr. Woolworth 
Secretary. That is a preliminary report. 

"The Committee on Amendments to the Constitu- 
tion, to whom, by resolution of the House, the ques- 
tion was referred whether the constitutional amend- 
ment set forth on page 201 of the Journal of the 
i General Convention of 1871 was duly proposed in 
that Convention, and, if so proposed, whether such 
I amendment has been duly notified to the several 



91 



Diocesan Conventions, so as to be ready now for 
final action by tliis Convention, respectfully report 
that the amendment in question relates to the 
setting apart by the General Convention of a por- 
tion of the territory of any organized Diocese 
too lai-ge for the Episcopal supervision of the 
Bishop thereof, with the consent of such 
Bishop and of the Diocesan Convention, and the 
placing of such portion mider missionary 
jurisdiction. It was passed by the House of Cleri- 
cal and Lay Deputies on the 25th of October, 1871, 
and was sent to the House of Bishops for their con- 
cm-rence. On the following day, October 26, the 
House of Clerical and Lay Deputies finally adjourn- 
ed, and on the nest day, October 27, the" House of 
Bishops also adjourned, without having taken any 
action on the pi'oposed amendment. In the third 
article of the Constitution it is provided that the 
acts of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
shall have the operation of laws unless the House 
of Bishops shall, within three days after a proposed 
action has been reported to them for concurrence, 
signify to the Convention their approbation or dis- 
approbation. 

" The Committee are of opinion tha,t no act of this 
House can take effect as an act of the Convention by 
the failure of the House of Bishops to concur or 
non-concur within the specified time, unless this 
House shall continue its separate sessions the whole 
of that time, and that by an earlier final adjourn- 
ment all acts of legislation not completed by the 
concurrence of both Houses fall to the ground. 

" They are also of opinion that all amendments of 
the Constitution require the approval of two suc- 
cessive Conventions, and that, where an act of ap- 
proval by the first Convention is incomplete as in 
this instance, the defect is not cured by notification 
to the Diocesan Conventions. Therefore, any en- 
quiry whether such notification has been in fact 
made becomes irrevelant. 

"On these grounds the Committee come to the 
conclusion that the proposed amendment to the 
Constitution referred to in the resolution of the 
House has totally failed. " 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsbm-gh. May I ask the 
Chairman of the Committee whether he has append- 
ed a resolution to his report, so that the matter 
may come up for discussion when his report is 
reached on the Calendar ^ Otherwise the House 
will be unable to act upon it. The usual resolution 
is, I believe, that the Committee be discharged from 
the further consideration of the matter. If that 
resolution be presented to the House, it will raise 
the whole question whether the House will concur 
with the report of the Committee or not ; but if we 
have no resolution, that report brings up nothing 
for the action of the House, although the House 
might be of an entirely different opinion from the 
Committee; 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The resolution 
referred to that Committee came to us in the form 
of a request for instructions from the Committee on 
Canons. We have given the reply that was desired. 
We have no resolution to offer. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Then, for the 
pm^pose of bringing the question before the House, 
because it does raise a very important one, I move 
that the Committee be discharged from the 
further consideration of the subject-matter, and 
let that go down with the report on the Calendar. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I should like to 
have this report and the resolution laid on the table 
for the present. There is other action from the 
same Committee on the subject-matter of this re- 
port, and when that report comes in I would like to 
have both acted on together. Let this be put on the 
Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT. It goes there, as a matter of 



[ course, and the Secretary will take notice of the 
resolution to discharge the Committee. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. That will do. 

FAEEWELL TO THE ENGLISH VISITORS, 

The PRESIDENT. I have to armounce to the 
House that our honored guest, the Rt. Rev. the 
Lord Bishop of Lichfield, starts for his home this 
evening, and is here to take a final adieu of the 
members of this House. The Bishop is here before 
you. 

The members of the House rose and remained 
standing during the remarks of the Lord Bishor). 

The LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD. My dear 
friends and brethren, I will not detain you long in 
the important business you have to transact ; but I 
did not like, after the exceeding kindness with 
which we have been received here personally and 
in public, to leave without coming here and giving 
full expression in a few words to our feelings of 
gratitude to you all, and of the earnest love and 
affection with which we shall continue to regard 
this branch of our great Anglican Communion. I 
shall go back to England with my friends who have 
come with me, to report, as I did report 
j three years ago, the earnest love and brotherly 
sympathy with which you all regard our 
dear old Mother Church of England. I have no 
doubt that that feeling of love will in time ripen into 
something more positive, something more syste- 
matic ; but on that point, of course, great necessity 
for deliberation exists. But on this one respect I 
think I might say a word, and with regard to my 
own excellent friend the Metropolitan, the Ai'ch- 
bishop of Canterbury, that nothing can be more del- 
I icate than his feelings with regard to this question 
i which was debated, I understand, in this House yes- 
terday. When I presented a resolution to the Upper 
House of the Convocation of Canterbury to the effect 
that it should be proposed that the Ai^chbishop 
should accept an office, by whatever name it might be 
called, equivalent to that of Patriarch in the ancient 
Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury with bis own 
hand altered the terms of the resolution, and for 
that, which might have seemed of the nature of an 
assumption, he substituted such words as these : 
"That it be referred to a committee to communicate 
with the various branches of the Anghcan Com- 
munion throughout the world, to consider what 
should be the position occupied by the Archbishop 
of Canterbury amongst all these Churches in full 
j communion with one another." 
I You see, then, with what delicacy this question is 
I regarded in England by our Chief Pastor there, 
j This, I am sure, is my own feeling. It was in that 
I feeling that I came here to study with you what I 
j may almost call the Newtonian law of gravitation. 

You are weU aware that ail the heavenly bodies 
I are governed by a law, under which no one of those 
I bodies is independent of the rest. They all revolve by 
'] the same law around the same central sun. They all 
; have various laws by which they gravitate one tow- 
ards another. It is by the same law that the moon re- 
volves around the earth, and that the satellites of 
Jupiter revolve around their primary planet. It is 
by the same law, so far as can be ascertained, that 
i the double and triple stars that have been discovered 
1 by powerful telescopes revolve around their com- 
• mon centre of gravity. 

1 I am quite certain, then, that there is an organic 
connection between all the branches of our Church, 
though that connection be of an ethereal and spirit- 
i ual kind ; that it is exactly that subtile power, the 
I most powerful force that is known, and yet alto- 
1 gether invisible and impalpable, yet capable of be- 
j ing reduced to the strictest calculation ; 

and it is that bond of spiritual vmion by 
I which we all, as believers in the same 



92 



Saviour, revolve around Him as the central 
sun of righteousness, and all gravitate one towards 
another by that feeling of brotherly love by which 
no man whatever can be independent of another, 
and by which no branch of the Church can be inde- 
pendent of the other branches of the same Church. 
That this will be our feeling more and more, and 
that it will expand itself into something like a 
definite system, I am as convinced as I am convinced 
that the laws of gravitation govern the whole solar 
system. 

But, dear friends, let me assure you of this one 
point, that I come here in the same spirit which I 
share with the Archbishop of Canterbury, of put- 
ting away, in the most clear and decisive manner, 
the idea of our having dominion over your faith, 
but that we come here to be helpers of your joy. 
That is the feeling in which we have come. That 
is the feeling in which we have been received. That 
is the feeling, I believe, which will continue to grow 
among us, till all the expanding branches of the 
Church of England are more and more united in 
one great brotherhood in Christ. 

With these few words, which I hope have not 
seriously interrupted the business of the day, I have 
only now to bid you all most earnestly and most 
affectionately, farewell. 

Rev. Dr. DALZELL, of Louisiana. Mr-. Presi- 
dent, may I ask his Lordship to remain on the plat- 
form while I offer a resolution ? It is that the 
President be requested to offer the prayer 
of the Church for those going to sea, for the Bishop 
of Lichfield and his attendant clergy ; and that the 
Convention join in that prayer, 1 make that mo- 
tiQn. 

The President put the question on the motion, 
and it was unanimously agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT read the following prayer, he 
and the whole House reverently kneeling : 

"O Eternal God ! who alone spreadest out the 
heavens and rulest the raging of the sea, we com- 
mend to Thy Almighty protection Thy servants, 
for whose preservation on the great deep our pray- 
ers are desired. Guard them, we beseech Thee, 
from the dangers of the sea, from sickness, from 
the violence of enemies, and from every evil to 
which they may be exposed. Conduct them in 
safety to the haven where they would be, with a 
grateful sense of Thy mercies ; through Jesus Christ 
our Lord. Amen." 

Pvev. Mr. EDWARDS. May I ask permission, as 
I was not in the House when the telegram arrived 
inviting the members of this House, if convenient, 
to attend the Congress at Stoke-upon-Trent, to say 
that I live and have lived for the last fifty years of 
my life within three miles of Stoke-upon-Trent, and 
my own Rural Deanery immediately adjoins 
that of the Rector of Stoke-upon-Trent, Sir 
Lovelace Stamer. Therefore, if I may look for- 
ward to the pleasure of being the means" of commu- 
nication for facilitating the arrival and entertain- 
ment of any members of this House, either Lay or 
Clerical Deputy, I shall feel it a great privilege, 
and hope that I myself may have some opportunity 
of showing some little return for those great hospi- 
talities which I have twice received. 

The Lord Bishop of Lichfield and the English 
clergy accompanjdng him retired from the House. 

PETITION ON RITUAL. 

Rev. Dr. GARRISON, of New Jersey. I present 
the petition of 67 clergy and 280 laymen, asking 
for a law to declare what ornaments and ritual are 
lawful, and what penalties shall be affixed to the 
transgression of those limits by defect or excess, and 
also for the establishment of a final Court of Ap- 
peal. 



The petition was referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

LESSONS FOR LENT. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I wish to call 
the attention of the Convention to an action which 
took place yesterday. It is on the forty-first page 
of The Churchman : 

" Rev. Dr. Mead, of Connecticut, presented a 
table of lessons for Lent, which was referred to the 
Committee oh the Prayer-Book. " 

This was done through forgetfulness of 
the fact that this^ matter was already in the 
hands of a Joint Committee of this House 
and the House of Bishops. To state very briefly 
the history of this matter, which is certainly 
a very important one, as I think every one of my 
brethren of the Clergy will agree : In 18G8, a Cleri- 
cal Deputy from the Diocese of Tennessee raised 
this subject, and it was referred to the Committee 
on the Prayer-Book of this Rouse, with a request 
that they would report to that session of 1868. 
The Committee on the Prayer-Book reported that 
the subject was such as that they did not feel them- 
selves qualified to bring in a proper report at that 
session, and they themselves moved that the subject 
be referred to a joint committee, which joint com- 
mittee was appointed, consisting, on the part of the 
House of Bishops, of Bishop Randall, the 
late Bishop Eastburn, and Bishop Gregg, 
and on the part of this House of Rev. 
Dr. Haight, Rev. Dr. Thomas W. Coit, and 
Rev. Dr. Howe, of Pennsylvania. In 1871 
this Committee desired to be continued 
and was continued. But since then, as we all know, 
Bishop Randall and Bishop Eastburn have departed 
this life, and Dr. Howe has been elevated to the 
Episcopate. Dr. Coit is no longer a member of 
this Convention, and Dr. Haight most unfortunately 
is not able to be present. But I take it, sir, that the 
Joint Committee still exists, and I was informed by 
Bishop Gregg this morning that he would 
move in the House of Bishops that the va- 
cancies on the Committee on the part of 
that House be filled : and I move now 
that the vacancies in that Committee on the part 
of this House be filled, and I think a report can be 
arrived at which will be satisfactory to all, at this 
session of the Convention. The table which I 
hold in my hand is a part of the fruit of the la- 
bors of this Committee. They have not author- 
ized it to be presented to this Convention as their 
report. It is a paper marked "strictly private," 
although I understand this very paper has been re- 
ferred to the Committee on the Prayer-Book. The 
members of the Convention will see that through 
misapprehension this action yesterday was all 
wrong, and we must recede from it, if we wish to 
pay proper respect to the House of Bishops and to 
the Joint Committee who already have it in charge. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that 
the private table of lessons, yesterday referred to 
the Committee on the Prayer-Book, be referred to 
the Joint-Committee on the subject of Lessons for 
Lent. 

The PRESIDENT. I suppose that form of 
amending the matter will do, without reconsider- 
ing the action of yesterday. The motion amounts 
to this, that the " Committee on the Prayer-Book 
be discharged from the consideration ot that paper, 
and that it be referred to the Joint Committee on 
the Lectionary for Lent, 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. I will say, in reference to 
that Joint Committee, as the name of Rev. Dr. 
Coit has been mentioned as not being a member of 
this House now, that he was not a member of the 
House when he was appointed. He was appointed 
not because he was a member of the House, but be- 



93 



cause he was considered to be the best-learned man 
in the Church on that subject ; and, therefore, I 
should suppose he had better be continued. He is 
not very far from here. He can easily be present. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I was not 
aware of that fact, sir. Then there will be but one I 
vacancy on the Committee to be filled. I do not 
wish to*^ be appointed. 

The PRESIDENT. That is not any reason why 
you should not be. The Chair suggests that Dr. 
Beach be appointed to fill the vacancy on the Com- 
mittee, and the Chair will put the question on 
that. 

The Chair put the question, and declared Dr. 
Beach appointed. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD. I move that that Joint Com- 
mittee be enlarged by the addition of two members 
on the part of this fl^ouse. I believe the technical 
title of the Committee is the Joint Committee on the 
Standard Prayer-Book. 

The motion was agreed to, and Rev. Dr. Beards- 
ley, of Connecticut, and Rev. Dr. Hubbard, of New 
Hampshire, were appointed the additional members 
of the Committe^. 

TRIAL OF CLERGYMEN. 

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. I offer the 
following resolution : 

Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee 
on Canons to consider and report to this House on 
the expediency of so amending Canon 12, Subsec- 
tion 3, of Title I. of the Digest, as to provide for the 
case of a clergyman being charged with offences 
for which ministers may be tried and punished, 
committed prior to his removal to the Diocese to 
which he now belongs, but which have not been the 
subject of investigation or trial." 

I will avail myseK of the five minutes' rule simply 
to state a case that asks for this legislation, which I 
believe is admissible. A clergyman was transfer- 
red to a Diocese bringing clean papers. He was, of 
course, received by the Bishop. Subsequent to his 
receival, grave charges were made against him, be- 
ing sustained by affidavits published in the local 
papers. The Bishop of the Diocese in which he was re- 
ceived, of course, had no right to proceed to the ex- 
amination and put him on trial. He could not trans- 
fer him to the Bishop of the Diocese from which he 
came, and that Bishop of course could not summon 
him back. It is a case of this kind for which legis- 
lation is sought. I move to refer the resolution to 
the Committee on Canons. 
The motion was agreed to. 

THE BAPTISMAL SERVICE. 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. I have a 
petition similar to that offered by the Rev. Dr. 
Vinton yesterday, and I move that it take the same 
course. 

The motion was agreed to. 

POSTURES IN THE COMMUNION OFFICE. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I offer the 
following resolution : 

"Resolved, That this House re-enact the pre- 
amble and resolution passed at the session of the 
General Convention in 1829, viz. : 

" Whereas, In the celebration of the Communion 
Office there is a variety of posture observed, and it 
is desirable that uniformity as far as practicable 
should be obtained in this respect. Therefore, 

"Resolved, That this House do respectfully re- 
quest of the House of Bishops the expression of 
their opinion as to the proper postures to be used in 
the said Office, with a view of effecting uniformity 
in that respect during the celebration." 

Mr. President, that preamble and resolution are 
copied from the Journal of 1829, when they were 



presented and passed apparently without opposi- 
tion. The matter was referred to the House of 
Bishops, and in the Journal of the Convention of 
1832, page 88, is the report that was made by the 
House of Bishops in response to that petition from 
the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The con- 
sequence was that this response assumed the 
form of constructional law ; that is to say, 
law so far as deference to the opinion of the 
Bishops is concerned in this regard. But forty- 
two years have now elapsed, many persons 
in the Church have forgotten, others probably have 
never heard, that such an expression of opinion had 
ever been made. I think that at this juncture m 
our Church life it is very important for us to know 
not only whether the Church of to-day is precisely 
the same as the Church of forty-two years ago, but 
it is very important that we should have such an 
expression of opinion for very many other reasons 
which I cannot submit during these five minutes of 
explanation, which I shaU be very happy to submit 
when the resolution comes up for discussion. 1 only 
offer it now that it may take its place on the Calen- 
dar. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will go on the 
Calendar. 

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. Mr. 
President, it is provided in the Constitution of the 
General Theological Seminary, an institution creat- 
ed by this bodv, that the Trustees of the Seminary 
shall present to every Convention a report of their 
proceedings. I hold in my hand the report which 
the Trustees now make to the General Convention, 
called the Triennial Report, which I am charged with 
the duty of presenting. I present it and move that 
it be referred to the proper Committee, the Com- 
mittee on the General Theological Seminary. 

The motion was agreed to. 

NUMBERING OP CANONS. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I wish 
to have two matters go to the Committee on Canons 
which are necessary to be looked after for the per- 
fection of the Digest. The first resolution is as fol- 
lows : . . 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring^, 
That the figures 5 and 7 in the twelfth hne of bub- 
section 4, of Section 8, of Canon 13, Title I., be 
changed to 6 and 8." , ^i. * 4- i-u ^- 

This change is rendered necessary by the tact tnat 
three years ago the so-called Theological Canons 
were changed, and now no reference whatever is to 
be found in Canons 5 and 7 of Title I. with respect to 
testimonials. Canons 6 and 8 declare what shall be 
the testimonials for persons who are to be ordained 
deacons and who are to be ordained priests. It is ne- 
cessary therefore that this change should be made 
that ' ' five" and ' ' seven' ' should be changed to six 
and ' ' eight, " these two Canons being the Canons now 
which declare what shall be the proper testimonials 
in case of ordination. I move the reference of this 
resolution to the Committee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

PROVISIONAL BISHOPS. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I offer 
the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That Section 6, of Canon 13, of Title I., be, and the 
same is hereby, repealed." 

This sixth section provides that "a Diocese, de- 
prived of the service of its Bishop by a sentence of 
suspension without a precise limitation of time, may 
proceed to the election of a Provisional Bishop." 
I vsdll not read the whole section ; it is not neces- 
sary. This section was passed in 1850, being one of 
the Canons of that year, and was intended for the 



94 



relief of the Diocese of New York, its Bishop being 
then under suspension without any precise limit 
of time • and, under the provision of this section, 
two Bishops were elected, Bishop Wainwiight 
and the present honored Diocesan, Bishop Potter. 
Tofi ^®^*®^ce was passed on Bishop Onderdonk in 
lS4rL The following General Convention of 1847 
passed the following Canon, Canon 10 of Title II. : 

Whenever the penalty of suspension shall be 
inflicted on a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in this 
Church, the sentence shall specify on what terms or 
at what time the said penalty shall cease." 

The Convention of 1847 designed to prevent any 
such indefinite suspension again. Therefore, there 
never can be any further use for this section. There 
never can be another Provisional Bishop elected for 
this reason. That sentence was considered anoma- 
lous, if not illegal, and, therefore, the General Con- 
vention m 1847 passed the section declaring that the 
time when the suspension should cease must be stat- 
ed. With the death of the late Bishop Onderdonk, 
all need for this section passed away. I submit that 
It IS unnecessary to continue a Canon in our Digest 
for which we have no further use. I move the ref- 
erence of tnis resolution to the Committee on 
Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

DIOCESAN SYNODS. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I wish to 
propose a Canon and move its reference to the 
Committee on Canons, and I will occupv less than 
hve minutes m explanation. It is a Canon entitled 

A Canon authorizing the Formation of Synods of 
Dioceses," This was the onlv part of the provi- 
sional system which I had in my mind when I moved, 
the-otlier day, that it be referred to the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution to take into 
consideration the expediency of devising such a 
system. It was in order to facilitate the union 
ot Dioceses within one State or Commonwealth in a 
common Synod. Certainlv a difficulty has arisen 
wnenever new Dioceses have been created whereby 
they have lost instead of gained in unitv. This has 
been felt to be an evil in this State. 'The several 
Dioceses m this State have fallen apart as disin- 
tegrated fragments. They have felt less interested 
m each other after such division than before. 
Those literary institutions in which thev felt a 
common interest have been, since the division, ob- 
jects of interest to one Diocese solely. It is 
in order to amend our machinery for preserving 
such umty and identity of interests which are com- 
mon among them, that I introduce this Canon. I 
had bestowed some thougJit upon it, when I 
found already the work done very largely to my 
hand by a late honored member of this House, the 
Honorable Murray Hoffman ; and the Canon which 
I shall introduce is his Canon, with one provision 
superadded. It is entitled "A Canon authorizing 
the Formation of Synods of Dioceses," 

The proposed Canon was referred to the Commit- 
tee on Canons, 

REV. DR, HAIGHT, 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
Mr. President : I hold in my hand some resolutions of 
courtesy simply, which I had prepared early yester- 
day morning, and which should have been presented 
then, but I was unable to offer them till the present 
time. 

The resolutions were read, as follows: 
"Resolved, That this House heard on Saturday 
with great regret the announcement that the Rev, 
Dr, Haight would be unable, on account of indis- 
position, to perform the duty assigned him as a 
Deputy from the Diocese of New York, 
"Resolved, That, in view of Dr. Haight 's valua- 



ble services during past years in the varied posi- 
tions he has filled as a member of this body, we de- 
sire to make most grateful acknowledgments ; and 
we also now tender him our deep sympathy in the 
Providential dispensation which deprives us of his 
efficient aid and coimsel, while we assure him of 
our prayers for his speedy recovery. 

"Resolved, That the Secretary furnish Rev, Dr. 
Haight with a copy of these resolutions. " 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
I desire to add nothing to the resolutions. The sim- 
ple statement tha.t I express in these resolutions is, I 
am sure, the feeling of every member of this House. 
I would not ordinarily oifer such resolutions, be- 
cause I do not think they are generally necessary ; 
but Dr. Haight's services during past years have 
been so long and so valuable, and his self-denial so 
great, that I feel, under the circumstances in which 
he is placed, it is due to him from us to make some 
acknowledgment therefor. I therefore ask the 
i^iivilege of presenting these resolutions to this 
House. 

Rev, Dr, MEAD, of Connecticut. I second the 
motion, if it be put. on the resolutions of the Rev- 
erend Deputy from Central New York. I think Dr. 
Haight well deserves this compliment. Dr. Haight 
entered this Convention in 1865, and was a member 
in 1868 and 1871. He served two sessions upon the 
Committee on Canons, and a most valuable member 
of that Committee he has been. His suggestions 
have been very valuable to me, and it is with deep 
regret that we miss him from the Committee 
at this time. I fully agree in the hope that this 
House in respect for his valuable services during 
the long period he has been in this Convention will 
pass the resolutions offered by the gentleman from 
Central New York, I think Dr. Haight richly 
merits it, though I think such a resolution might 
have been passed in behalf of Mr. Murray Hoffman 
when he left. It is never too late to do right. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move the sus- 
pension of the rules and the immediate passage of 
the resolutions. 

The PRESIDENT. If ail objection is withdrawn, 
it is not necessary to suspend the rules. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I did not object. 

The PRESIDENT. I know, but the gentleman 
from Louisiana, I think, did. 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. I will not 
stand against the will of the House, as a matter of 
course. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the pas- 
sage of the resolutions offered by the Reverend 
Deputy from Central New York. 

The resolutions were adopted unanimously. 

DELEGATES FROM MISSIONARY JURISDICTIONS. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, 
I have a resolution, wiiich I hand to the Secretary 
to rea,d. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

" Resolved, That the standing order adopted at the 
General Convention of 1871, on the eighteenth day 
thereof, page 198, be amended by striking out the 
words ' directly and specially affecting their re- 
spective jurisdictions and no others, upon the motion 
of any member of this House,' and inserting in 
place thereof the words 'but not to vote,' the 
standing order as amended to read as follows : 

"Resolved, That one Clerical and one Lay Deputy, 
to be chosen by any Convocation of all the clergy and 
representatives of the laity, convened by the au- 
thority of the Bishop of any missionary jurisdiction, 
within the limits of the United States, shall be enti- 
tled to have seats assigned to them in this House, 
and may be allowed to speak on any question, but 
not to vote ; and that this be a standing order of 



95 



tliis House, and printed with its J ournal at the end 
thereof. " 

Mr. WELSH, of Penusylvaiiia. My motion is 
that this be referred to the Committee on Canons, 
and I will state the reason for the amendment. At 
the last session we authorized each of the Missionary 
Jurisdictions to send one Clerical and one Lay Dep- 
uty. Li a few cases they have complied with it. I 
think there are three Clerical Deputies present only 
— the Rev. Charles R. Bonnell, from Oregon and 
Washington Territory ; the Rev. Dr. Melancthon 
Hoyt., from Dakota Territory, that veteran mission- 
ary ; and the Rev. Samuel D. Hinman, the mission- 
ary to the Indians, from the Missionary Jurisdiction 
of Mobrara. There are two Lay Deputies — one 
from Colorado and the other from the Missionary 
Jm-isdiction of Mobrara. 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. The Rev. Mr. 
Finch is here also. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. His name is not 
on the roll. 

The SECRETARY. Not on the printed list, be 
cause he came too late ; but it is on the roll of the 
House. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. This merely au- 
thorizes these Deputies to speak, not to vote. It has 
its analogy in the case of Delegates from Territories 
in the House of Representatives. Those who know 
these gentlemen, and are aware of their long expe- 
rience in the Church, may feel sm-e that they will 
not be hkely to trespass on the time of the House. 
They have valuable experience, and if we limit a 
large missionary jurisdiction that has a Bishop to 
one Clerical and one Lay Deputy, we are restricting 
it very much. Their Bishops have a voice 
in the House of Bishops ; but we have 
viiiiually muzzled them here ; but perhaps it was 
proper until we saw who came. Those who know 
these gentlemen, vv^ho know the value of their 
services and the vast experience they have had on 
subjects that it is very important for us to be in- 
formed upon, will be disposed to remove the restric- 
tion. This amendment merely removes the restric- 
tion, they having no vote, but the liberty to speak. 
My motion is that this change be referred to the 
Committee on Canons. 

Rev. Dr. BERKLEY, of Missouri. I suggest, as 
the pressure on the Committee on Canons is very 
great, that, if they take up the subjects referred to 
them seriatim, it may be a week before they come 
to this question ; and if this compliment is to be 
bestowed on the Clerical and Lay Deputies from 
the Territories, it is desirable that they should have 
the opportunity at once of speaking and voting as 
well in the Convention. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to refer the resolution to the Committee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

DISCIPLINE OF COMMUNICANTS. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, submitted the 
following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That a joint committee, to consist on the part of 
this House of three clergymen and three laymen, be 
appointed to consider and report to the General 
Convention what action, if any, is desirable in ad- 
dition to or in explanation of the provisions already 
enacted by this Chuich for the godly discipline of 
its commimicant members." 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky. I wiU simply 
say that this resolution is the same substantially as 
the one which I offered in 187 1 in the G-eneral Con- 
vention at Baltimore. At that Convention, howev- 
er, the resolution was suffered, from my own fault, 
I beheve, to remain on the Calendar until the very 
last day of the session, and then, although it passed 
the House of Deputies by a vote very nearly unani- 



I mous, it reached the House of Bishops 
I too late for their action. I offer it now 
i in the hope that it may meet with a 
better fate. I am not going to make any speech 
in regard to the very important subject of disci- 
j pline. The question presented in my resolution is 
1 not shall we enact such or such a system of disci- 
pline ; not even shall we enact any further provi- 
sions than we have ; but simply to appoint a com- 
mittee to enquire whether any such enactment is, in 
fact, needed or not, and this surely involves nothing 
[ very revolutionary. 

I ask for this enquiry because it seems to me that 
the words in the Rubric immediately before the of- 
j fice for the administration of the Holy Communion, 
I " open and notorious evil living," need definition, 
I something supplementary ia the way of specifica- 
! tion ; and this, it seems to me, is needed both for peo- 
: pie and for clergy. As it is, if a clergyman decides 
I iu his own mind that the carrying of a gold-headed 
I cane is "open and notorious evil living," 
and his Bishop agrees with him, the 
i layman who carries such a cane may be 
j suspended from the Holy Communion with- 
I oat remedy, certainly without any direct or imme- 
I diate remedy. So again, on the other hand, if a 
' clergyman attempts to exercise discipline, in cases 
i where disciplme is clearly called for, the chances are 
I that he will be considered by some one, and proba- 
I bly by more than one, as acting on his own private, 
mistaken, perhaps wilful misconstruction of the 
j words of the Church, and not on the Church's un- 
I questionable authority. 

I Surely there ought to be some remedy for this, 
i and a remedy, I think, there is. No one ever thinks 
of taking personal offence at a conduc- 
j tor of a street car for not turning out and giving 
I way. He cannot do it. He must keep to the track. 

So I think we ought to have a track laid down for the 
] clergy in this matter of discipline, from which they 
i themselves could neither depart nor could any 
' blame them for keepmg to it. I wul simply say 
i that no one should for a moment think that such a 
system of discipline as that to which this resolution 
, looks is anything modern or sectarian. I 
imow that many think so. I know that 
; many seem to think that a Church, in or- 
i der to be catholic and comprehensive, 
must tolerate not only a very wide range of error 
in doctrine, but a very wide range of vice in life. 
Surely this was not the conception of the Catholic 
Church in those days when the Chm^ch was catholic 
indeed, and such, I trust, will not be the conception 
of the Catholic Church "w^hen the ultimate action 
i comes to be taken, if so be that ultimate action shall 
j be taken on tins resolution. 

I The PRESIDENT. By a vote of two-thirds of 
the House the resolution may be at once considered. 
The Chair will put the question. 
Two-tMrds not voting in the affii-mative, the re- 

! solution was not now considered, but was ordered 

j to be placed on the Calendar. 

i REPRESENTATION OF DIOCESES. 

' Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut, submit- 
ted the following resolution ; 

"Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution to consider and 
report whether Article 2 of the Constitution ought 
not to be so amended as to make the representation 
from the several Dioceses, in the House of Cler- 
ical and Lay Deputies, accord in some degree with 
the numerical strength of the parishes, clergy, and 
communicants of each Diocese. " 
Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. Mr. 
I President, I do not know that I should have offered 
I this resolution, had not two propositions already 



96 



been referred directing the Committee to consider 
this second article of the Constitution, 

In 1832 a motion of this kind was made, but the 
House of Clerical and Lay Deputies for that year 
did not have as careful a Secretary as we have, and 
therefore no record of the ultimate disposition of 
the matter appears. 

I do not suppose that after the acknowledgment 
of American Independence there could have been 
any union of the States unless there had been a con- 
cession of rights and privileges from the larger ones 
to the smaller. So each State was allowed a repre- 
sentation in the Upper House, or the Senate, of two 
members, and each State might have 
one member in the Lower House, the 
popular branch, and more according to 
the ratio of population. It is our boast that we 
have framed our Constitution after that of the civil 
government. We have always been called a Repub- 
lican Church, and we have, after the example of 
Congress, an Upper House, wherein each Diocese is 
perpetually represented by its Bishop, and a Lower 
House— this — composed of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 
The Constitution allows each Diocese to elect not 
more than four clergymen and four laymen. Wheth- 
er it was in the mind of the Convention at the time 
the Constitution was framed, that the new and 
small Dioceses would send only one or two repre- 
sentatives, I know not ; but now it is true that all 
the new Dioceses send their full delegations, four 
clergympn and four laymen ; at least, all the seats 
assigned to them are fully occupied ; and we have 
stretched the Constitution so far as to give Depu- 
ties from Territories seats on this floor, without the 
right of voting, but before long that thing will be 
asked for. 

Mr. President, I desire to make a comparison of 
a few statistics, just to show what state we are in 
and what state we are likely to come to. Somehow 
or other these new Dioceses have a great deal of 
time to go into ancient matters, and they furnish to 
us quite as much business as the old Dioceses. They 
dip into Nicene matters, ancient councils, and all 
that sort of thing, and they come here and seem to 
think that the Church is represented in this country 
not by its members, not by its communicants, but by 
the number of square miles. We have had from two 
or three of these new Dioceses applications to have 
missionary jurisdictions set off from them, and 
before long these missionary jurisdictions will seek 
to be erected into Dioceses, and come here knocking 
at our doors for admission. Some of them will be 
seeking foi- the provincial system. One Bishop 
whose Diocese has less than three thousand commu- 
nicants has proposed that his Diocese should be 
divided into sections and a provincial system 
adopted. Now, I wish to give a few statistics, just 
to show how great the disparity is in this direc- 
tion — 

The PRESIDENT. It will be for the House to 
say whether it wiU hear the gentleman further. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. Have 
I taken up my full time ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. I beg 
pardon. 

The PRESIDENT. There is no Calendar now, 
and if the House chooses the gentleman can go on. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. I will 
take a few moments longer if the House will in- 
dulge me. 

Rev. Dr. KNICKERBACKER, of Minnesota. I 
move that the gentleman have leave to go on. 

The PRESIDENT. It will require a two-thirds 
vote. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. I do 
not ask it, then. 
The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the resolu- 



tion be referred to the Committee on Amendments 
to the Constitution. 

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. I move to lay 
the resolution on the table. 

Mr. PEIRCE, of Micliigan. I suggest that it is 
always usual to let matters be referred when a ref- 
erence is proposed. 

Rev. Dr. PULTON, of Alabama. I think the fact 
that one gentleman moved to lay the resolution on 
the table led a number of Deputies, including with 
them myself, not to vote when the Chair put the 
question. I think the proposed reference, as in com- 
I mon courtesy, ought to receive the approbation of 
this House. The Committee can discharge the mat- 
ter summarily afterwards. I trust the vote may be 
again taken. 

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. I think the 
motion to lay on the table is a proper motion, and 
that it was made in proper time. I do not wish to 
have a debate on this question, and I insist on my 
motion. 

The PRESIDENT. The House can indicate its 
will in regard, not to the merits of the resolution, 
but to the question of courtesy, by the vote to lay 
on the table. I will put that question. The motion 
is that the resolution lie on the table. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the 
motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution. 

The motion to refer was agreed to. 

EXAMINATIONS FOR DEACON'S ORDERS. 

Rev. Mr, STONE, of Delaware, submitted the 
following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be di- 
rected to enquire into the expediency of so amend- 
ing Canon 4, Section 3, ' Of Examination for the 
Diaconate only, ' in such a maimer as to add to the 
requirements of a candidate for the deacon's orders. 

"Resolved, also. That the same Committee be 
directed to enquire whether the requirements that 
pertain to the third examination for priest's orders 
may not be substituted for those now required of 
candidates for deacon's orders in Section 3, Canon 4, 
so that all candidates for deacon's orders be re- 
quired to pass an examination in the same." 

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. I have sim- 
ply to say that those of us who have had anything 
to do with the education or examination of candi- 
dates for orders are under the impression, I think, 
that the candidates come into the Church too easily 
under the requirements " for deacon's orders only," 
and what is meant by that I do not precisely under- 
stand. I never knew of but two "deacons only," 
and one of them is now a priest. They are 
required to have a knowledge of the Prayer-Book 
and of the Bible, qualifications which any respectable 
Sunday-school teacher possesses. The difficulty is 
that after they get into the ministry it is too late 
to correct any deficiencies or any lack of education 
or of requirement or qualification. Any man, after 
he becomes a deacon, is a minister of the Church to 
all intents and purposes. He can take charge of a 
parish, do all its work, and do almost anything ex- 
cept administer communion ; and, if he is lacking 
then, you cannot turn him out, you cannot keep him 
back. Now I propose that the Committee be directed, 
instead of requiring candidates for deacon's orders 
to be examined only in the Bible and Prayer-Book, 
to require them to be examined on the third exami- 
nation required of candidates for priest's orders. 
There is a very generally foggy atmosphere over 
all these Canons in regard to candidates for orders 
and their examinations. Things are very much 
mixed and not clear and distinct, and they need a 
general overhauling. 



97 



I will read what is required of priests in their third 
examination : 

"The third examination shall be on Church His- 
tory, Ecclesiastical Polity, the Book of Common 
Prayer, its history and contents, and the Constitu- 
tion and Canons of this Church, and those of the Dio- 
cese to which the candidate belongs." 

When the Committee report on the subject I shall 
have something further to say. I will not detain 
the House now. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

RITUALISM. 

Rev. Dr. REYNOLDS, of Kansas. I hold in my 
hand a copy of a preamble and resolutions passed at 
the last Diocesan Convention in regard to Ritualism. 
In order that they may take their proper course to 
come before this House, I have a resolution to offer. 

The resolution was read by the Secretary, as fol- 
lows : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be re- 
quested to consider the advisability of framing and 
reporting to this House a Canon or Canons which 
shall embody the spirit of the following preamble 
and resolutions adopted at the last annual Conven- 
tion of the Diocese of Kansas, which is hereby pre- 
sented by the delegation from that Diocese." 

The PRESIDENT. I suppose the Diocesan reso- 
lutions need not be read. The question is on re- 
ferring this resolution to the Committee on Canons. 

The motion v,^as agreed to. 

Rev Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. I send this up 
to the Secretary to be read. 

The PRESIDENT. Is it a resolution ? 

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. A resolution 
with a preamble. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

"Resolved, That the foregoing memorial be, and 
is hereby, adopted by this House, and referred to 
the House of Bishops. " 

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. Now I ask 
for the reading of the memorial. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman asks that the 
memorial accompanying this resolution be read. 
Shall it be read ? 

The question was decided in the negative. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. Is it a memorial 
to this House { 

The PRESIDENT. No, it is a memorial to the 
House of Bishops. 

Mr. SMITH, of South CaroMna. How can we 
adopt a memorial to the House of Bishops without 
considering it ? 

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. I ask for the 
reading of the paper. Then the gentleman will un- 
derstand all about it. 

Mr. MONTaOMERY, of Western New York. I 
beg to suggest that the rule that memorials and 
petitions snail not be read without an order does 
not apply to this case. It is a part of this resolu- 
tion that we adopt as the sentiments of this House 
what is stated in that memorial to be presented to 
the House of Bishops. It is the gentleman's right to 
have nis resolution — and the memorial is part of it — 
read before we act upon it. It is a little 
peculiar, to be sure ; but he asks us to adopt 
an address to the House of Bishops in the 
terms there stated. Of course, that is not a 
memorial within any rule, but it is part of his reso- 
lution, and we never can act upon it or refer it 
unless it is read. I submit that he is entitled to 
have that read as a part of his resolution. It is not 
a memorial within the rule, as it is not a memorial 
to this House ; but he asks us to adopt the words 
that he has put with his resolution as our senti- 
ments, though addi-essed to the House of Bishops. 

The PRESIDENT. It is an anomalous case. I 
hope the House will cut the knot by agreeing to hear 



the whole paper read. The Chair will put the ques- 
tion again on allowing it to be read. 

The question was decided in the affirmative. 

The PRESIDENT. The paper will be read. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

" To the House of Bis>iops of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church in General Convention assembled : 

" Reverend and beloved Fathers in God : 

"We, the clergy and laity of the House of Clerical 
and Lay Deputies, respectfully beg leave to represent 
that we are anxious to come to a clear and definite 
understanding of the Ritual usages of the Church, 
in view of a great and an increasing varietv of 
practices in the conduct of the services thereof, by 
which in some instances our doctrinal soundness 
and Apostolic character as a branch of the true 
Catholic Church have been called in question. 

" In the providence of God, the Bishops of the 
Church have been placed over us as chief pastors, 
leaders, and superintendents of the flock, and we 
gladly recognize their authority, responsibility, and 
I loving care of the interests of the whole Church, 
as well as the wisdom that has ever characterized 
our Episcopate. With a view, as we hope, of har- 
monizing all parties, and to set forward the prosper- 
ity of the Church, and to promote peace and good 
will among us, we believe that it is possible for the 
Bishops to present, during the session of this Con- 
vention, a scheme on the subject of Ritual that 
shall prove satisfactory to all parties, and become 
of binding force in all our Dioceses. 

" We conceive that in the House of Bishops such 
a scheme can be originated and carried through with 
far greater ease and far less intensity of feeling 
than in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, be- 
cause your House is a much smaller body, and your 
sessions are wholly private, and being placed at the 
head of the Church, and enjoying the grace of Epis- 
copal consecration, we gladly recognize the fact 
that if om- chief pastors ai-e brought to unanimous 
agreement we shall have no difficulty in placing 
ourselves in harmony with your action. , 

"And, finally, we believe that our chief hope of 
bringing about a satisfactory solution of the vexed 
question of ritual Lies at the door of the House of 
Bishops. 

"Therefore, Resolved, That the foregoing me- 
morial be, and is hereby, adopted by this House, and 
referred to the House of Bishops." 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. If that resolution is 
proposed for adoption, I object to its consideration. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution wiU be placed 
on the Calendar. 

COMMITTEE ON CANONS. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I submit the follow- 
ing resolution : 

" Resolved, That a special committee be appoint- 
ed by the Chair to consider and report v/hether 
I the subjects of legislation now referred to one com- 
! mittee, to wit, the Committee on Canons, may not 
j be classified and several committees constituted, to 
I which they may be appropriately referred." 
! Mr. President, the House sees that the whole busi- 
I ness of legislation — and it constitutes a great mass 
of business— has all to be groimd out by one Com- 
mittee. No other legislative body in existence so 
contrives its legislation. It seems to me a perfectly 
practicable scheme to classify, as in other legiblative 
! bodies, the business, so that we may have a dozen 
I committees at work, and not pile the whole labor 
I of our short session, because we cannot sit here long, 
i upon one Committee. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. I suppose 
! the resolution goes on the Calendar ? 
'■ The PRESIDENT. If objected to it goes on the 
i Calendar. 

I Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. If that 



resolution is before the House I have something- to 
say. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution is not before 
the House. Objection having been made to it, it 
goes upon the Calendar. 

MINISTERS ORDAINED ABROAD. 

The Rev. Dr. GARRISON, of New Jersey. 1 sub- 
mit the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That Canon 10, Title I., 'Of Ministers 
oi-dained in Foreign Countries by Bishops in com- 
munion with this Church,' line 14, after the words 
' satisfactory evidence, ' add the following : ' From 
the Bishop or ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese 
wich which he is canonically connected, that he is 
a clergyman in good and regular standing in such 
Diocese.' " 

My reason for offering this is, that it is well known 
to many of the clergy here that clergymen from 
foreign pai-ts often come to our shores, and are 
allowed to minister without the requisite amount of 
enquiry being made as to their character or qualifi- 
cations. The Canon, as it now reads, is simply 
"satisfactory evidence of his pious and moral 
character," leaving the question open as to how it is 
to be ascertained. I have known one sad case 
where a clergyman officiated for some months 
in a parish, who was afterwards found to have been 
at that time a delinquent under the laws of the Pro- 
vince of Canada, and was put in prison for liis de- 
linquency, there having been no proper enquirj'- 
into the matter. If we had a definite rule estab- 
lished that he should present letters affirming that 
he is a clergyman in good and regular standing, 
they of course would settle beyond all contro- 
versy what he is, and make the whole matter clear. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

testim:onials of bishops-elect. 
Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I desire leave 
to submit at this time a report from the Committee 
on Canons. 

Leave was granted, and the report was read as 
foUows : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was refer- 
red the subject of so amending Sections 2 and 3, of 
Canon 13, of Title I., as to provide that the testimo- 
nials of Bishops-elect shall be sent to the several 
Diocesan Standing Committees, and the several 
Bishops in aU cases, instead of as now, to the Gene- 
ral Convention, when within six months of the meet- 
ing of that body, respectfully report that they 
have considered the same, and are of the opinion that 
it is inexpedient. They therefore recommend the 
adoption of the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
amendment to Sections 2 and 3, of Canon 13, of Title 
I, of the Digest." 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I move that that 
report be made the order of the day for Thursday, 
at eleven o'clock. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will go on the 
Calendar, of course. 

committee on canons. 

Rev. Mr. BRO VVN, of Michigan. If the business 
on the Calendar is in order, I move that the resolu- 
tion offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Blair] be taken from the Calendar and be the fii'st 
business in order. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. It lies over one 
day under the rule. 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. I move to sus- 
pend the rules, and that the resolution of the gentle- 
man from Maryland be before the House, 



I Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 1 
j believe the rule says that by a vote of two-thii ds 
i we may take up any matter out of its order on the 

Calendar. It is not a suspension of the rule. Am 

I right ? 

The PRESIDENT. I suppose so. It certainly 
requires a two-thirds vote to take it up now for 
consideration. 

The motion was agreed to bv a two-thirds vote. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Blair] is before the 
House. 

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky. I move to 
amend the resolution by adding : ' ' The classifica- 
tion shall follow the same order as in the Digest — 
first, a Committee on the Ministry, Doctrine, and 
Worship ; second, a Committee on the Disciphne of 
the Church ; third, a Committee on the Organized 
Bodies of the Church ; fourth, a Committee on Mis- 
cellaneous Canons." 

These are the divisions of the Digest, and I should 
think we might adopt them without much delay, 
and greatly facilitate the business of the House. 

Rev. Dr. REYNOLDS, of Kansas. I should like 
to know whether the resolution contemplates dis- 
pensing with the Committee on Canons, or substi- 
tuting other Committees to perform the v/ork which 
has been assigned to them. My understanding is 
that all these matters now go to the Committee on 
Canons. Is that a rule ^ 

The PRESIDENT. It has been the custom of this 
House to refer all such matters to the Committee on 
Canons. I think that the House has probably bm'- 
dened that Committee too much by referring mat- 
ters that frequently belong to the Prayer-Book Com- 
mittee and to other Committees to the Committee 
on Canons ; but I Imow of no rule of the House by 
which that is necessary. It has only been the cus- 
tom. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
hope the original resolution will pass in the form 
offered by the gentleman fi-om Maryland. The 
amendment simply is to classify the business con- 
fided to the Committee, to be done by this House. 
The question to be referred by the resolution is 
whether it is expedient to classify the subjects now 
committed to the Committee on Canons, and a spe- 
cial committee is to be appointed to report on that 
subject to this House. If 'they think that the four 
great divisions existing in the Digest are the best di- 
visions, they can so report, and the gentleman who 
offered that amendment can make that suggestion 
to the Special Committee. If the Special Commit- 
tee thinks there are better or other divisions, or that 
it would be proper only to have these four general 
divisions as heads, and subdivide them, it will so re- 
port. But it is obvious that when you refer to the 
Committee on Canons every subject which requires a 
Canon or an amendment of a Canon, you refer to one 
Committee, as the gentleman from Maryland well 
remarked, the entire legislative business of this 
House. He contemplates that we shall sub- 
di%'ide that department of our busine^ 
by having all laws on one subject re- 
ferred to one committee, and all laws on another 
subject referred to another committee ; as, for in- 
stance, that laws affe cting Ritual be referred to one 
committee, laws affecting the testimonials of clergy- 
men to another connnittee; and all the various 
headings of our business will then be referred to 
committees on those special subjects, amd they 
will repoi-t a Canon to carry out any particular 
view of the House. It is obviously impossible for 
I one committee to frame Canons to carry out e^^ery 
j possible pouit of legislation which this House 
I may wish to enact, and it is, as the gentleman 
j well said, entirely contrary to the practice of other 
i legislative bodies. You might as well, in the Legis- 



99 



lature or in Congress, refer to a Committee on Laws 
every amendment changing the laws of the land 
that was proposed in tlie House. That is what we 
have been doing here. It is literally that. We re- 
fer to a Committee on Laws every possible amend- 
ment and change in the laws of the Church on any 
subject. 

I hope that this Special Committee will be allowed 
to take this matter untrammelled by the amendment 
or any instructions, and report to tlais House wheth- 
er we can have such a division of our business as 
will facilitate the work of the Convention. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. Mr. Presi- 
dent, when I wished, tliis resolution to go on the Cal- 
endar, it was not because I was opposed to it, but 
I thought it necessary that action on it sh ould be pre- 
ceded by some discussion. I did not suppose gen- 
tlemen had thought of the subject much, and hence 
I thought it was better to have it discussed before 
it went to a special committee. 

You have obseiwed yourself, Mr. President, that 
many subjects are referred to the Committee on 
Canons that really ought not to go to that Commit- 
tee — not to say that they miaht go to another Com- 
mittee better, but they ovr'^t not to go to that Com- 
mittee. Take, now, all changes in the Prayer- 
Book, all orders for altering the mode of worship, 
or amending any part of the Rubrics of the Prayer- 
Book. Those ought to go to the Prayer-Book Com- 
mittee. The Canons cannot help those matters ; 
they cannot produce a Canon to amend them. Now, 
you have a Committee on the Prayer-Book. Why 
not refer every subject that comes up relating to the 
Prayer-Book to that Committee ^ 

Then that Committee, who now have hardly any- 
thing to do, would find itself with enough to do. I 
Not only so, but even that Committee is too general. 
Gentlemen have pointed out that the CommJttee on 
Canons was too general. So the Comroittee on the 
Prayer-Book is too general. Let any one take up 
the Prayer-Book, and he will see that there are 
three great divisions at least, if not more, 
which ought to be made, and for each one 
there ought to be a separate branch of the Prayer- | 
Book Committee, if not a separate committee. 
You would naturally refer to one committee j 
everything that aifected the Morning and j 
Evening Prayer, the Litany, the Occasional Prayers, i 
and the Occasional Offices. Let these go to one Com- j 
mittee. They will have enough to do with them, j 
and then they can do effectually what is to be done | 
in that respect. Then take the Sacraments. A j 
Committee on that subject, every one can see, : 
would be a most important Committee. They j 
would, perhaps, have less to do, and yet they 1 
would have heavier work, more important work. I 
Then the third would be on the Lectionary and ! 
Psalter. This division I have known to be made i 
actually, and to have worked well. 

It is true the titles to our Canons would indicate a ; 
proper division ; but I do not know that you could • 
make as many subcommittees as there are titles in 
our Digest of Canons, but still that is a very good ! 
indication of how the Committee on Canons might 
be divided. The idea has hitherto been that almost i 
everything we could do was to be done by a Canon. 
You have broken that up in a great measure. | 
When you have appointed a Committee on Amend- ' 
ments. to the Constitution you have taken 
a great burden from the Commattee on Canons, a,nd 
none but those who have been on that Committee 
know what that burden was. There is now left to 
them as much as any committee can bear; and how 
the Committee on Canons could have stood under 
the labor they have had heretofore is almost incon- 
ceivable. Instead of finding fault with their dila- 
toriness, the wonder has been how they have ever 
got Jihrough at aU, for reaUy it stands just i 



as if any one of our legislative bodies had a 
Committee on Acts, and required every act to go to 
them. The mischief at present is worse, because 
of the habit of referiing so many subjects to the 
Committee on Canons. I am ready to say that if it 
were now proper to go back to the records of that 
Committee, you could withdraw from them and 
give to other Committees perhaps one-third of what 
has been referred to them. 

I take the opportunity to make these remarks 
because I believe it is very important that some 
arrangement should be made on this subject. I 
should be happy to have the Committee on Canons 
divided into sections. You do not want a full com- 
mittee for each section, but you probably want 
nine in each division. I would take the Committee 
on the Prayer-Book in the same way and divide that 
into sections. I believe by doing this you would 
get through the business of this Convention in half 
the time you now do. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Mr. President, I 
suppose that a large portion of the business of this 
House has already been launched in various com- 
mittees, and it would be almost impracticable now, 
without prolonging the session of the General Con- 
vention, to subdivide and split up '"twixt North 
and Northwest side " all the various subjects and re- 
allot them to new and inexperienced committees, I 
think it probable that a carefully-arranged subdi- 
vision of labor, prospective m its character, might 
be, after much careful and painstaking deliberation, 
adopted ; but I really think that it is too late for 
this session of the General Convention. But on the 
general proposition, this resolution contemplates in 
effect the destruction of the Committee on Canons. 
Of com'se, sir, if the suggestion of the gentleman 
from Kentucky, offered as" an amendment, be fol- 
lowed, the Committee on Canons will 
go by the board. We shall have a Com- 
mittee on Orders in the Ministry, a Committee 
on Discipline, a committee on this subdivision and 
on that subdivision ; but the venerable old Commit- 
tee on Canons, with my distinguished friend from 
Connecticut at its head, will be laid upon the shelf 
as an old-fogy memory of the past, no longer to be 
revered among us. I for one am opposed to any ac- 
tion of this House that woidd dissolve that venerable 
committee which has been the organ of the 
legislative purposes of this House for scores 
and scores of years. And, sir, while mem- 
bers on the floor seem to express profound sym- 
pathy with that Committee in the labor it has to 
undergo, I do not know that members of the Com- 
mittee have themselves expressed any great sense 
of injustice or burden by reason of the duties de- 
volved upon them. And it seems to me that, if there 
be some obstruction in the way of the progress 
of new ideas and new schemes of legislation 
arising from the necessity of everything affecting 
the canonal law of this Church passing through the 
Committee on Canons, which is a break-water, and 
at the same time a drift-net to catch improper 
things that may creep into general legislation, it is 
an evil that a great conservative Church ought ra- 
ther to covet than to seek to get rid of. 

John Randolph once said that the great bane 
of modern legislative bodies is to be found in sub- 
divided facilities for multitudinous legislation; 
and I consider one of the great safeguards of this 
House to consist in the matured experience, the 
fife-long devotion of the members of the Commit- 
tee on Canons, to the great interests of the Church, 
which have in successive epochs been addressed 
to the consideration of that Committee. Lay my 
venerable friend from Connecticut [Rev, Dr. 
Mead] aside, and you close a great library, as it 
were — a treasure-house of knowledge, which, when 
any subject affecting the Canons of this Church is 



100 



brought before that Committee, is not only poured 
forth for the enUghtenment and instniction of the 
Committee, but when the subject comes before this 
House is at the service of the House and the Church 
at large. 

Now, sir, I feel that this will be a "new depar- 
ture " in the legislative history of our Church, the 
end of which will be that we shall have scattered 
over this House dozens, it may be, of committees, 
with inexperienced men upon them, and crudely 
prepared legislation will be brought f oi-ward for the 
consideration of the House. In a body so large as 
this, in an assembly of three hundred-odd members, 
there must be great confidence in the committees that 
report measures for the consideration of the 
House. And, whilst I do not undertake to say that 
other committees cannot be organized which would 
be as conservative, as experienced, as learned as the 
members of the Committee on Canons, yet I do say 
that on that Committee are now found men who, 
from their previous knowledge and experience^ have 
acquired valuable information, which this House 
ought not to disperse and scatter all over it in other 
committees. 

I say, sir, that the question now is. Will you dis- 
solve the Committee on Canons, or will you pre- 
serve that Committee ? At least, let us allow that 
Committee to stand during the rest of this session, 
and sleep over the matter until another session of 
the General Convention. 

The PRESIDENT. The hour for a, recess has ar- 
rived, and the House will take a recess until two 
o'clock. 

At two o'clock P.M. the House resumed its ses- 
sion. 

COmilTTEE SERVICE. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. President, 
as the House is not yet entirely full so as to pro- 
ceed with the business pending*^ at the recess, will 
you accept a motion to increase a committee ? 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will entertain it. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that the 
Joint Committee on the Standard Prayer- 
Book on the part of tliis House be increased 
by the addition of Rev. Charles R. Hale ; 
and I name the gentleman for this reason : 
Mr. Hale is perfectly competent ; he has been a 
great deal with our friend. Dr. Haight, in the prepa- 
rations, so far as they have extended, and he would 
be a most important member of that Committee, as 
our own members of the Committee are new men 
on the whole subject. I therefore move that Rev. 
Mr. Hale, not a member of this House, be placed 
on that Committee. Dr. Coit, also not a member of 
this House, is already on the Committee. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. I will also give notice to the 
House that I have received information that the 
Rev, Dr. Scott, of Florida, will not be in this House 
during its present session, and I appoint in his place 
upon the Committee on the State of the Church the 
Rev. Mr. Thackara, from the same Diocese. 

COMMITTEE ON CANONS. 

The Convention resumed the consideration of the 
resolution offered by Mr, Blair, of Maryland, this 
morning. 

Rev, Mr. CIRAULT, of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I desire to offer an amendment to the resolu- 
tion now pending before the House. It is to strike 
out all after the word " Resolved," and insert: 

" That a special committee of nine be appointed 
by the Pre&i lent, to which the Committee on Can- 
ons may refer such matters as it may deem necessa- 
ry to expedite its business, the action of the Special 
Committee to be reported directly to this House." 

I offer this amendment because I am satisfied 
from conversation with several members of the 



' House that the original resolution is distasteful to 
them. The honorable member from Vii'ginia., 
I Judge Sheffey, has expressed very nearly my views, 
I but not exactly. I think it may be necessary that 
I the Committee on Canons should have some relief 
in the amount of business they have on hand, and 
they are the best judges of this matter. I propose 
to leave" it to them to decide wliether they want 
^ any relief or assistance whatever in the transaction 
' of their business. K they do, then there will be a 
committee of nine members, appointed by the 
President, to whom they may at their pleasure refer 
; such business as they desire to get rid of. 

Mr, ATWATER, of Minnesota. Mr. President, 
it seems to me that this resolution which was offer- 
ed by the gentleman from Maryland is one of great 
importance, and I was very sorry indeed to hear 
i the remarks of the honorable gentleman from Vir- 
I ginia upon it. IVhat was that resolution ? Simply 
j a resolution to appoint a committee of enquiry as 
to whether the business before the Committee 
j on Canons can be classified and divided, and a 
! part of it go to some other committee. On 
that question I suppose no one will doubt but 
that one-half — I think I may safely say two-thii^ds — 
j of the important business coming before this Con- 
I vention goes to that Committee. Why so ? Because 
i that Committee is the Committee on Legislation, and 
I it so happens, and, as was explained here yesterday, 
\ that; legislation pertains to three different branches 
I which come before us — on the Constitution, on 
i Canons, and on the Rubrics of the Prayer-Book. 

Now, how does it happen that all this busi- 
! ness accumulates before the Committee on Can- 
} ons ? It seems to me very natural. A member 
! presents a resolution on some subject that pertains 
I to legislation. Without reflection as to whether it 
; concerns the Constitution, or the Prayer-Book, or 
j Canons, the impulse in perhaps two-thirds of those 
I who present these resolutions is immediately to 
] refer them to the Committee on Canons. I think it 
j so happens that this Committee beyond any question 
i has been overburdened with work, as we have seen 
I for every Convention that has met. 
I Now, sir, I say that I was surprised at the remarks 
j of the honorable gentleman from Virginia. Why ? 
I He says that this resolution is a blow stiuck at the 
j Committee on Canons. How does that appear ? I 
I am not on the inside of the motives of the gentle- 
! man who offered that resolution. I do not know 
but that he had an idea to disturb in some way the 
j Committee on Canons. It such was his idea, I 
think I am safe in saying that no member of this 
I House sympathizes with him ; but I assert such was 
: not the purpose of the resolution. There is nothing 
i in the language of it that implies such a purpose, and 
I I ask — 

j Mr, SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Will the gentleman 

I allow me to make a suggestion ? 

I Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota, Certainly. 

1 Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Mr. President, I 

j was induced to make those remarks by reason of 
the distinct proposition of the gentleman from 
Kentucky by way of amendment of the pending 
proposition, to indicate the subdivision of subjects 
to be referred to these new committees, and if 
by Titles I., II., III., or by subdivisions of 
those Titles, you ran through the entire 
subjects of legislation, where would the Committee 
on Canons be ^ I say that it is an inevitable result, 
if the suggestion of my friend from Kentucky were 
followed, that these new committees would neces- 
sarily expel the Committee on Canons from its 
position as a committee, because there would be 
then three or f om- classes of committees, with sepa- 

' rate subdivisions of subjects referred to them. 

1 Mr, ATWATER, of Minnesota. I heai' the ex- 

i planation of my honorable friend from Virginia, 



101 



but I fail to see how the conchision that he has de- 
duced from it follows ; for I ask again what is this 
resolution i Simply one of enquiry whether the 
business of the Committee on Canons can be so clas- 
sified and arranged that any other committees in 
this House can attend to it for them. Now, I pre- 
tend to say that if that can be done, it is " a con- 
summation most devoutly to be wished," not from 
any fault of the Committee on Canons, however. 

The gentleman says that they have not asked for 
this relief. True, sir, they have not, and I do not 
know but that it would have been a little more polite 
for my friend from Maryland to have waited until 
they did ask for it ; but I am afraid that if he had 
waited till that time he never would have had the 
opportunity of presenting his resolution. "While I 
admit that the members of the Committee on Canons, 
which embraces the best talent that we have in this 
Church, have ably performed their duty in regard to 
all business committed to them ; and I for one am 
prepared to say that perhaps the whole business of 
the Church might be committed to them ; and I do 
not know but it would be better done than it is at 
present. But I do recognize the fact that there are 
other committees in this House that embrace some 
talent and that are not overburdened with work, 
who are willing to do any work committed to them. 

In regard to the amendment just offered, I have 
to say that I am opposed to that in toto, for that 
amendment proposes merely to leave the whole 
subject where it is now — to wit : if the Committee 
on Canons see fit to delegate any of their business to 
any other committee, it shall be done. Now, 
our honorable friend from Virginia says that they 
are not overburdened with business, and that 
they do not propose to delegate any of their 
business. I do not care who does the business of 
this Committee ; but it is true, as gentlemen who 
have been in this Committee for the last fifteen 
years know, that the business of the Conunittee on 
Canons has been further behind than that of any 
other Committee ; not from any fault of the Com- 
mittee ; they are the hardest-working Committee, 
beyond all question, of any Committee in this 
House ; but they are overburdened. 

The question simply is, Shall a committee be ap- 
pointed to enquire, simply to enquire, if a part of 
their duties can be devolved on any other Com- 
mittee. It seems to me that ordinary courtesy 
would allow such a resolution to pass without de- 
bate ; much less should I suppose that the members 
of the Committee itself would be the ones to object 
to a committee of this kind. Sir, I am in favor of 
appointing this special committee. Whether it will 
result in anything practical or not, remains to be 
seen. I do not know that it will, but clearly in 
my mind the enquiry will do no harm. An 
able committee appointed simply to enquire and 
report, certainly can do no harm, •and it seems to 
me that, as I say, it is a matter of courtesy alone. 
This Committee should be suffered to be appoint- 
ed, and we should hear their report, because if 
this business is going on as it has, year after year. 
Convention after Convention, increasing largely 
on the Committee on Canons, we are going to come 
to a point some time, when even, although they 
might be almost omnipotent, they could not do all 
the business, and it seems to me not improper to 
consider it at this time. 

I am therefore, sir, in favor of the appointment 
of that Committee imqualifiedly, and I trust the 
House will appoint it. 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. Mr. 
President, I have in my hand a hst of the Stand- 
ing Committees of this House of the General Con- 
vention. I speak to the amendment to the amend- 
ment, which calls for the appointment of a com- 
mittee to which, at its option, the Committee on 



j Canons may confide such work as it thinks proper. 
I Now, sir, is that to be a subordinate committee or 
i a co-ordinate committee ? Is it to appear among 
I the Standing Committees on this register, or is it to 
I be a Committee which shall hide itself under the 
j protecting wings and the directing power of the 
Committee on Canons ? I think there is some ex- 
planation necessary before the House can venture 
to accept the amendm.ent. 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. All the 
explanation necessary is stated in the amendment 
itself. It says distinctlj^ that the action of that 
committee shall be reported directly to this House. 
It is not, therefore, a subordinate committee. It is 
a committee appointed to do the work which the 
Committee on Canons finds itself unable to do ; and 
when this business is transferred to that special 
committee, it is then to be acted upon by that com- 
mittee and reported by the special committee directly 
to this House. 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. The 
Committee on Cannons, however, is to confide the 
work to that committee, and direct it what it shall 
do, to cut out certain work for it. It does not stand 
as a co-ordinate committee under those circumstan- 

^^Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. President, 
I have very little to say on this subject, and I should 
have said nothing had it not been made a personal 
matter by one gentleman who spoke intimating that 
i there was some feeling on the part ol the Committee 
on Canons in relation to this question. Sir, as a mem- 
ber of that Committee of several years' standing, and 
as Chairman of that Committee, I had no feeling at 
the motion made by the gentleman from Maryland 
—not the least. I could have wished that that mo- 
tion had prevailed at once, because then the 
Committee on Canons would have been consulted, 
of course, by the special committee appointed to 
consider and report as to whether they needed the 
assistance proposed. 
! Sir, I have no feeling on that subject. I have 
j feeling, however, on this subject : The whole of this 
debate on the part of those who advocate the taking 
away of certain duties from the Standing Com- 
mittee on Canons goes, necessarily and naturally I 
admit, on the presumption that the Committee on 
I Canons have too much to perform. I would ask the 
I Secretary of the House if ever the House has 
i adjourned with anything remaining, to his know- 
ledge, on the Calendar of the Committee on Canons 
which had not been reported to this House. 
; The SECRETARY. No, sir. 

I Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. This, remem- 
I ber, was before we asked, as we did at this session, 
I that you should divide our duties. I have long felt 
I that on one important matter, that of amendments 
I to the Constitution, we wanted the best legal minds 
in the Convention on that Committee ; and when I 
looked around and saw the wisdom embodied in the 
laity here, I felt that on amendments to the Consti- 
tution it would be wise in us not to con- 
tinue that additional burden upon the 
Committee on Canons, but to appoint a committee 
1 for that special purpose. The House has gener- 
! ously granted it, and the Chair has appointed a 
j most judicious committee, taking it as a whole. So 
I far we are relieved from duties which we have 
never shmnk from, never failed to report upon, and 
I must say in defence of the Committee on Canons, 
as having been for many years its Chairman, that 
I defy any man to assert that that Committee on 
Canons has been derelict iu its duty or has not per- 
fectly fulfilled it. 

Gentlemen rise and make their proposi- 
tions, and then move that they be sent to the 
Committee on Canons, if I hear them, and I do not 
think the duty proposed is germane, I say " that be- 



102 



longs to the Committee on the Prayer-Book, " for 
instance, " and I move that it be referred to that 
Committee, " I have endeavored, and other mem- 
bers of the Committee on Canons have en- 
deavored, to do that, and to prevent the reference 
to our committees of subjects that belong to other 
committees. W e have a great deal of business on 
our hands now unquestlonablrf, but it is apparent 
rather than real. Large circulars are committed to 
us on certain subjects which have been very much 
agitated and mooted by the public, who suppose we 
are goino; to be split into ten thousand pieces by 
these subjects ; but I do not believe we shall lose a 
hair b3^ them. 

Under these circumstances, till the Committee on 
Canons, as now subdivided by the addition of a 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, 
cry, " You are giving us too 2nuch to do ; we cannot 
do it," or until your Calendar shows that we are 
negligent in our duty, we beg you not in any degree 
to reflect upon us. 

I know full well that the discharge of the duties 
of a committee depend very much upon the activi- 
ty, and system, and energy of its chairman. I am 
an aged man, not very active, but I believe that 
some persons in this House think my mode of driv- 
ing business ahead in the House would be more 
honored in the breach than the observance. 

Still it is my nature, and while I am on that Com- 
mittee, I promise you that everything sent to us 
shall be brought back to you again, either matured 
or to ask you to refer it to another committee. 
Why, then, should you undertake to interfere with a 
Committee which, at its own suggestion, you have 
already divided, to make another, and another, and 
another* subdivision ? 

I have nothing more to say, I shall not serve on 
the Committee again, and thei'ef ore I have felt free 
to say what I have said. 

Mr, MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
I rise to offer a substitute for the original resolution 
and the two amendments : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
enlarged by the addition of eight members, to the 
end that they may create from their number sub- 
committees, to consider special subjects referred to 
them by the House." 

Rev. Dr. BERKLEY, of Missouri. I move that 
the whole subject, the resolution, together with the 
substitute and amendment, be laid on the table. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
That motion cannot be made while I am on the 
floor. 

The PRESIDENT. Of course not. The gentle- 
man from Western New York is entitled to the 
floor. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
My object in offering this substitute is manifold. 
First, there is no intention by any of these proposi- 
tions to reflect in any way whatever upon 
a Committee who, I believe, possess the 
largest confidence of this entire House, as 
well as its respected and venerable Chairman ; nor 
is it altogether to reheve that Committee of the 
onerous duties imposed upon them, although 
they might well be willing to have their labors 
divided among others. The object of this proposi- 
tion is, first, that the business of the Committee 
may be relieved and distributed among a larger 
number ; and, secondly — and it is an important 
point — that there may be a larger representation on 
that Committee of this House, which has within its 
scope the entire legislation of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church in the United States of America, so 
far as this House is concerned. 

The office of a Committee on Canons, if the origi- 
nal resolution shall be adopted, and the Special 
Committee should report subcommittees, to whom 



I we could refer matters, would be reduced to this : 

: If committees on special subjects were created by 
this House, the matter referred to them would be, 

[ " Do we desire or do we need such a measure ? " 
and the Committee would be directed to en- 
quiie into the expediency of the measure, which 
is wholly irrespective of the form of law in which 
it should be put; and having through that Commit- 
tee reached the mind of this House as to whether we 

i do or do not wish that measure, we act accordingly. 
If we do wish the measure accomplished, it may be 
necessary to refer it to the Committee on Canons to 
put it in proper shape as legislation. If we do not 
wish it accomplished, it is not necessary for them to 

i consider it at all. 

The Committee on Canons are not merely a com- 
mittee to frame lav/s or Canons to carry into effect 

i the wishes of this House, but they have the very 

\ grave duty and the very responsible duty of report 

I ing to this House whether it is expedient to have a 
Canon on any particular subject, and of course 
that jurisdiction of the Committee embraces the 
subjects-matter of the entire business of this Con- 

I vention, so far as the enactment of lavv^s for the 
Church is concerned. 

i I, for one, was very much impressed by the re- 
marks of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Shef- 
fey] as to the necessity of the conservative influ- 

I ence of a committee of their dignity and ability ; 
and it is for that reason that I have abandoned my 
support of the original resolution, and now prefer 

: to leave the whole matter still in the hands of the 
Committee on Canons, enlarged so as to embrace a 
greater representation of this House, and, at the 
same time, enable them to do to a greater extent 
what they are now doing, as I understand — referring 
matters on different subjects to subcommittees cre- 
ated by themselves, exercising a general supervi- 

i sion over the whole, and bringing them here by the 

i general report of the whole. 

j The difference between this motion and the 
j motion which immediately preceded it to create 
I a special committee of nine, to whom the Standing 
I Committee could refer any matter, lies in this: 
i that when the Standing Committee would refer a 
matter to a special committee of nine, they would 
I lose any control or supervision over it, and we 
should lose the benefit of their wisdom in super- 
I vising the action of that committee. Under 
j the proposed substitute, whatever is referred to sub- 
committees must pass muster through the whole 
i Committee before it can receive final sanction and 
i be reported to this House as the action of the Com- 
! mittee, and it seems to me it will serve all the pur- 
! poses that can be accomplished by subcommittees 
I appointed in any other way. 

I Mr. BALDWIN, of Michigan. Mr. President, I 
! fully accord with the Deputy from Western New 
\ Yoi'k, who has just taken his seat, in the proposed 

amendment to the resolution offered by the gentle- 
I man from Maryland ; but I apprehend there is only 
j one v/ay to accomplish that purpose, and that is by 

giving one day's notice of an amendment of the 
! fourth rule of this House, which provides for certain 
I Standing Committees, to consist of thirteen mem- 
i bers. 

I believe that every member of this House who 
has had experience in legislative bodies will agree 

! with me when I say that in almost all legislative 
bodies a very large share of the work done by those 
bodies is first referred to one or two of the many 
committees of those respective bodies. For exam- 
ple, the Judiciary Committee of almost any legisla- 

1 tive body reports more business for the action 

I of that body than almost all the 
other committees ; and the Committee on Canons 
in this House corresponds almost precisely with the 

I Judiciary Committee of a legislative body. I believe 



103 



that the time may come when it will become desir- i 
able — necessaiy, even — to divide the Committee on 
Canons perhaps into two or three committees ; ; 
but at this stage of this Convention it i 
would be almost suicidal. I accord , 
therefore with the gentleman from "Western New 
Yoi-k in believing that the best way to relieve the j 
Committee on Canons, who are certainly overbur- 
dened by work, is by increasing the number of that I 
Committee ; but to accomplish that, I think "-hegen- '| 
tleman will agree with me in saying, requires one \ 
day's notice, in compliance with the twenty-eighth i 
rule of order, which is : I 
" No amendment of these rules shall be made un- | 
less one day's notice shall have been given of the i 
motion to amend ; and no rule shall be suspended j 
unless with the assent of two-thirds the mem- | 
bers present. " Then the fourth rule reads: "At 
the opening of the session the President shall ap- 
point the following Standing Committees," and 
among these is the Committee on Canons, "ea,ch to 
consist of thirteen members. " I submit, therefore, 
that the only way to accomplish the object is by | 
giving notice to-day of a proposed amendment to ! 
Rule 4. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
That is so if the point of order is insisted upon ; but 
a great many things pass a httle out of order by 
general consent. If anybody raises the point of 
order, it avails ; but if the House do the thing, it is 
done. 

Mr. BALDWIN, of Micliigan. But we had better 
do things in the legal way according to our rules. 
It is not worth while for us to take proceedings not 
in accordance with the rules, as it seems to me. I 
say again, however, that I quite accord with the 
view expressed by the Deputy from Western New 
Y ork. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. If 
the point of order is made, I shaU be compelled to 
give notice of my amendment to the rules ; but if 
the point is not made, the action of the House is just 
as legal as if the notice had been given. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I shall detain the 
House by but a very few remarks on this subject. 
I ^rould say first that I regard aU the amendments 
which have been offered as out of order. The 
amendment of my friend from Kentucky is not 
germane at all, because this, as has been 
truly said by the gentleman from Min- 
nesota, is merely a resolution of enquiry. 
It is a resolution to appoint a committee I 
to enquire whether it be expedient to do a i 
certain thing. The gentleman from Western New j 
York and the gentleman from Louisiana propose 1 
to amend that resolution of enquiry by a positive ! 
enactment. That is not germane to it. j 
So with the amendment of the gentleman j 
from Kentucky. I do not propose to legislate i 
at all. They do; and therefore they are 1 
entirely; out of order. I think nothing can be [ 
clearer than that proposition. I think the members | 
of the House must all be sensible that none of the 
pi-opositions which have been offered by way of | 
amendment to my resolution can be entertained, | 
and therefore I come back to say a few words — and | 
a very few words indeed they shall be — upon the 
original proposition. I 

There is a great misconception about it by my I 
learned friend from Virginia, and by the reverend ' 
gentleman at the head of the Committee on Canons. 
I never have been engaged ; 1 shall not be here en- '< 
gaged in any special legisla,tion. I do not ' 
bring this matter in for the purpose of affect- 
ing any man or anything that is now pend- 
ing before the House, It seems to me, with 
this great and growing interest that we have 
charge of, when we have a Chm-ch expanding i 



all over the country, that the clothes which were 
large enough for it in its beginning may not be now. 
This Committee on Canons, when ours was an early 
institution, might have been all-sufficient to attend 
to the various legislation which this Church in its 
infancy required; but we know now that great 
questions, questions of absorbing interest, are con- 
tinually multiplying, and will continue to multi- 
ply, in so large and influential a body as 
this has become thi^oughout the land, and 
therefore we must look not to to-day. The resolu- 
tion did not contemplate, and I would not have any 
business now referred to the Committee on Canons 
taken from it. But in the absence of any Commit- 
tee on Rules, what are we to do ? We must have a 
special committee to take charge of new rules, and 
to consider whether, in the growing legislation 
which such a body as this requires, other commit- 
tees may not be appropriately established to enable 
us to do our business properly and in order. 

The gentleman says, and says with truth, that the 
Committee on Canons have done their work, and 
done it weU. I have no complaint on that point ; 
but every man who is at all conversant with the 
nature of the enquiries now to be made, and that 
will hereafter be made, knows that one committee 
cannot make them all. Poi' instance, we have 
now one single question which is enough 
for this Committee to attend to in the 
short time we have here. We ought to 
have that question before us now. It is the com- 
manding question before the country. How long 
will it take them to reach it ? It has not been 
reached yet, that I know. We may have the spec- 
tacle presented here of our convening in the face of 
this country with a question that has excited the 
country as it never has been excited heretofore, 
not reached because we have a certain accumu- 
lation of work upon this Committee ! 
Conservative as the Committee is, there are 
others also conservative. Although a new man 
here, I hold myseK as the representative of a con- 
servative Church, and our people want some voice 
through me and my colleagues on this floor in the 
great questions before the Church, and we want to 
have it whether we are new men or old men, and 
we want to have it as speedily as it can be had. 

So far from it tending in the least to prevent 
that due investigation of cjuestions which ought 
to be had by appropriate organs, the way, as 
everybody knows, to secure the proper investiga- 
tion of questions is by the subdivision of labor. 
It is no reflection at all, and I certainly did not 
intend any reflection upon the Committee of Canons, 
I am the last man that would be guilty of such a 
thing, and especially upon my learned friend from 
Virguiia. He seems to suppose that be- 
cause I am a new man in this body, 
I have come here to supersede him in Ms functions. 
No, sir. I come here to follow him — I come to obey 
his lead so far as I can consistently with the duty I 
owe my constituents whom I represent in this body. 
I have no such thought as that^of superseding him 
because I am a new man, nor am I a destructive, as 
he seems to suppose every man must be who under- 
takes to interfere with the existing organization of 
the committees of this House. 

I hope the Convention will meet the question 
simply and plainly as put in the resolution ; it is 
not a very grave one, and if the proposed com- 
mittee siiould do anything revolutionary, when its 
report is made that will be time enough to call it by 
these hard names, or to suggest that something of 
that sort is contemplated. I disavow in every re- 
spect having contemplated any sach thing, I con- 
sulted with the most experienced and best informed 
advisers in this body, and I had the sanction of the 
best advice in the body when I did present the resolu- 



104 



tion. Now, if it meets the views of the Convention, 
let it be adopted ; if not, let it be voted down. I 
feel no sort of concern about it. 

Rev. Mr. MARKS, of Mississippi. Mr. President, 
until the Conmiittee on Canons asks some relief I 
think no legislation is necessary on the part of this 
House ; and for that reason, as I conceive that the 
House is ready for a vote, I move that the whole 
subject be laid on the table. 

The PRESIDENT It is moved that the whole 
subject be laid on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report the 
next business on the Calendar. 

The SECRETARY. The next business is the 
resolution reported by the Committee on Canons, 
relative to Canon 4, Title II. 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That Section 3, of Canon 4, of Title II., be amended 
so as to read as follows : 

" ' Sec. 3. If the Bishop approve the recommenda- 
tion of the Presbyters, and if the rector or assistant 
minister shall refuse to comply with the require- 
ment of the Bishop made in pursuance of such 
recommendation, the Bishop shall proceed to forbid 
him the exercise of any ministerial function within 
the Diocese, until he shall retract his refusal ; 
or, if the Vestry or congregation shall refuse to 
comply with any such recommendation, they shall 
not be allowed any representation in the Diocesan 
Convention, until they shall have retracted their 
refusal.'" 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I have 
been requested by the Chairman of the Committee 
CO present their action in this matter and to explain 
it. The subject was referred to the Committee by 
two resolutions from this House, one coming origi- 
nally from the Diocese of Massachusetts, and an- 
other from the Clerical Deputy from New Jersey 
(Rev, Dr. Farrington) ; that" from Massachusetts 
asking that the Committee should take the whole 
Canon into consideration and I'eport, if any, and 
what changes might be desirable in it. The Clerical 
Deputy from New Jersey asked a specific change, 
that the words " Bishop and," in the third section of 
the Canon, should be omitted upon the ground that 
thereby this section would be brought into more 
perfect consistency with the other sections of the 
Canon. To explain this, let me refer the House to 
the action of the General Convention of 1871, at 
which time this Canon was passed. 

The matter was referred to the Committee on 
Canons at that time on the motion of a Lay Deputy 
from Pennsylvania. A report was brought in by 
the Committee, in which a board of reference was 
proposed to act in the cases for which the 
Canon is intended to provide — " Of Differ- 
ences between Ministers and their Congrega- 
tions, and of the Dissolution of a Pastoral Con- 
nection" — by wliich arrangement the board was 
to consist of the Bishop and five Presbyters. That 
was the Canon as re^jorted to the House, and ac- 
cepted by them and sent to the House of Bishops. 
You will find the report on the t wo hundred and fifth 
page of the Journal of 1871. The House of Bishops, 
by their Committee on Canons, recommended cer- 
tain alterations, which are to be found on page 372 
of the Journal of 1871. Among those alterations was 
this, "That the words ' Bishop and ' should be strick- 
en out " of several places in the Canon, not in that 
section, the object of the Committee on Canons in 
the House of Bishops being undoubtedly to make 
the Board of Reference to consist exclusively of the 
five Presbyters, these Presbyters then to make a re- 
commendation to the Bishop of the Diocese, upon 
which recommendation the Bishop was to act 



in conjunction with that Board of Presby- 
ters. That left the section standing as it does 
now upon the Digest of 1871 : "If any rector or as- 
sistant minister shall refuse to comply with the 
recommendation of the Bishop and Presbyters, the 
Bishop shall proceed to forbid him," etc. 

It is thought there is an inconsistency in retaining 
the words "Bishop and" in this section, whereas 
they had been excluded from the previous ones ; 
but the Committee on Canons thought that there 
was an intentional change made ; that it was in- 
tended that, in the first place, the Board of Refe- 
rence should consist exclusively of the Presbyters 
appointed, but that, when it came to the 
actual recommendation and to carrying into effect 
the recommendation, that should be done by the 
Bishop and Presbyters, that the Bishop would come 
in by virtue of his own office in the act. They, 
therefore, thought that the change proposed was not 
only not demanded by consistency, but was contrary 
to one of the principles of the Church, because it 
would have made the rocommQu lation of the Pres- 
byters directly binding upon the recalcitrant clergy- 
man without the intervention of the Bishop. The 
Committee on Canons, therefore, rejected the 
change jjroposed by the Clerical Deputy from New 
Jersey. 

But furthermore, the Canon as a whole was com- 
mitted to the Committee to report what changes they 
might think desirable in it. Taking this section into 
consideration, they supposed that it would be better 
to express a little more definitely the position of the 
Bishoji himself in the matter, and at the same time 
to avoid the anomaly of appointing a penalty 
upon a clergyman for refusing to obey 
a recommendation merely. They therefore 
propose, in the language which has been read to you 
just now by the Secretary, to substitute this for the 
section as it stands upon the Digest of 1871. This is 
the only change the Committee propose to make in 
this Canon at present : 

"If the Bishop approve the recommendation of 
the Presbyters, and if the rector or assistant minis- 
ter shall refuse to comply with the requirement of 
the Bishop, made in pursuance of such recommen- 
dation, the Bishop shall proceed to forbid him the 
exercise of any ministerial function," etc. 

You will perceive tiiat the Bishop's approval of 
the recommendation is required, and then, if the 
minister refuses to comply with the requirement 
of the Bishop made in pursuance of the recommen- 
dation, the penalty is to be inflicted. This is, I be- 
lieve, the substance of the Committee's reason for 
proposing the alteration which has been sent in. 

Rev. Dr. BURG-ESS, of Massachusetts. Mr. 
President, I have no objection whatever to, and I 
believe the Convention of the Diocese of Massachu- 
setts would agree very well with, this alteration 
which has been proposed by the Committee on 
Canons ; but I think the alteration does not touch 
the substance of the Canon sufficiently, 
and does not touch the points which proba- 
bly influenced the Convention of Massachu- 
setts in proposing the resolution which 
they did propose. I am not prepared at the present 
moment to speak definitely upon it; but I should 
like to look a little more into the subject. I will 
therefore move that the report be laid upon the 
table, and I will i>romise to call it up at some future 
time. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. May I 
be allowed to say a word ? 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts, I with- 
draw the motion f oi- that purpose. 

Rev, Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I think 
I represent the Committee correctly when I say that 
there being no definite proposition coming with the 
reference from Massachusetts, and being unable to 



105 



have anything more than an incidental Imowledge 
of what 'might be their motive, it was almost impos- 
sible for us to act upon it, 

Eev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. That is 
perfectly true; but some of the Deputies from Mas- 
sachusetts had hoped they would receive notice of 
a session of the Committee, and would be permitted 
to attend, to present some matters connected with 
this Canon. 

Rev. Dr. WATSOK, of North Carolina. Yfe 
were not aware of that. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. No such 
invitation was extended ; and hence we have been 
obliged to wait until the report should be presented, 
thinking that possibly the Committee might see the 
i-ame objections which have been seen by others, 
and propose to correct them. If the Committee 
make no objection, I should be glad to have the res- 
olution laid on the table at present, to be taken up 
at some future time. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Would it not be 
bett-er to recommit it ? There are grave objec- 
tions to the Canon as it stands. I think if it were 
recommitted, and those objections heard, the Com- 
mittee might change the Canon. 

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. There is a single sug- 
gestion which I should like to throw out for the 
consideration of the Committee "on Canons, if this 
matter goes back to them, if they have not already 
considered it. If I caught the language of the 
Canon as reported, correctly, in a certain con- 
tingency it proposes to disfranchise a parish. 
The question I should like to suggest is whether the 
i-epresentation of a parish is not a constitutional 
right, and if it be so, whether it can be abridged or 
taken away by canonical legislation. It may be 
that the Committee on Canons have considered this 
point ; but if they have not, I desire to call their 
attention to it, in case the subject is recommitted. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I can state to 
tlie gentleman that that matter was not brought be- 
fore this present Committee, but I think it was be- 
fore the' Committee of 1871 who introduced that 
provision. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. With the consent 
of the gentleman from Massachusetts, I move to re- 
commit this matter to the Committee on Canons. 

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. I think the question 
I have suggested ought to go to the Committee on 
Constitutional Amendments. 

Mr. BURGWm, of Pittsburgh. Probably the 
object which the gentlemen have in view by recom- 
mitting tliis Canon would be better reached by let- 
ting the report come up when it is called up, and 
when these gentlemen will be prepared to discuss 
it, and then let it be debated before the House, 
and recommitted with such instructions as the 
House may think proper. Then the Committee 
will understand the feeling of the House, and by 
this course wo shall probably avoid two discus- 
siqns upon the same subject. "^Of course it will be 
the duty of the Committee on Canons to obey the 
instructions which the House may finally, on the 
presentation of the views of the gentlemen who 
have spoken on tills Canon, agree to. 

Rev: Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. If there is to be a 
Canon, the matters that I wish to bring before the 
Committee I prefer to bring before the Committee 
alone in the first place. Upon conference with the 
Chairman of the Committee I find that we shall be 
invited before that Committee at its next meetiag, 
and I hope the House wiU recommit 
the subject and allow us to be heard by the Com- 
mittee. I think if the reasons were laid before this 
House they would see the propriety of this course. 
Already matters have arisen under this Canon that 
I do not desire to bring before this Convention, but 
do desire to bring before the Committee ; and then 



a Canon framed after these facts are known to the 
Committee, I am satisfied, will be acceptable to the 
Convention without their knowing the exact facts. 

Rev. Mr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I rise to ex- 
press the hope that this matter may be recommitted 
for the same reason given by the Deputy from 
Texas. Difficulties have arisen in the Diocese of 
Kentucky under this Canon which it is not neces- 
sary to si^ecify here, but which might be stated be- 
fore the Committee on Canons, and which would 
show them that there is reason why the Canon 
should be amended otherwise than "in the way 
! already proposed. 

i Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Is it necessary 

j to recommit this report to the Committee on Can- 
ons ? Why cannot this amendment be passed, since 
it seems to have received general approbation, and 
then let any other proposed amendment to the Con- 
on be referred to the Committee on Canons ? 

{ The PRESIDENT. I suppose it is deemed better 
to act upon the whole subject together. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. If the propo- 
sals which are to come from Massachusetts and 
from Texas are contradictory of that which has 
already been done, then of course the whole matter 
had better be recommitted ; but, as it appears that 
they are not c 3ntradictory of v/hat has been re- 
ported by the Committee, I ask again, Why send 
that back to the Committee Why not pass what 
the Committee recommend, if you approve of it, 
and then let the other subject be" sent to the Com- 

j mittee ? 

I Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsm. I want to say 
I that the late Bishop Armitage, of Wisconsin, was 
so completely convinced of the unfairness of this 
I Canon in all its essential matters that he would not 
i act under it. Why should there be such legislation 
i as this ? There is a dispute between a minister and 
I his congregation. That dispute prima facie cannot 
be a moral dispute for which the minister is tried, 
but it must be a dispute under which he is incapa- 
ble of being tried ; and what legislation have we - 
Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabam.a. I rise to a point 
of order. The motion before the House is to recom- 
mit, and it is not debatable. 

The PRESIDENT. It is not debatable, and I in- 
tended to so decide. 
Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Vv'isconsin. Then I move 
I to recommit, with instructions to the Committee to 
substitute for this whole Canon the old Canon of 
1833. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise again to 
the question whether this subject is debatable. 

i The PRESIDENT. I think that the motion to re- 
commit with instructions is deba,table. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. My motion is to 
recommit, with instructions to the Committee to 
substitute for this present Canon the old Canon, Nc. 
34, of 1832. Such legislation as this — that the con- 
tending parties should nominate a certain number of 
Presbj'iiers, and that the number should be reduced to 
five by striking off — is the most uncertain of any- 
thing. It falls to reason that this matter, not being 
a question of morality, the contending parties 
simply nominate those Presbyters who they think 
are most favorable to themselves, and then, 
when they come to strike off, each strikes off 

t those that he thinks most hostile to himself. 

j The consequence is that the whole thing is left in 

I the hands of the Bishop and his three Presbyters. 

I The old Canon that we had was a Canon imder 
which the Bishop issued his notice to all the clergy 

1 of the Diocese, and they assembling made a board 

I in which the Presbyter had a chance of fair treat- 
ment in every way. How this original 
Canon was repealed no man Imows. It was 
at the tail of the Convention of 1859, 
when a great portion of the men who were 



106 



interested in the matter had gone, and some one 
!^-ets up and says he has no great objection to that 
Canon, because Dr. Hoffman said it was very good 
and a beneficial Canon on the whole, but he thought 
it was not perfect, and so he proposed to repeal 
it, and it was repealed, and we were left without 
any light upon the point at all. Then by and by, 
a few years afterwards, this new Canon was added, 
and by this Canon the whole weight is put against 
me, while under the old Canon the trial, if it could 
be called such, was by my fellow-Presbyters, and I 
had some chance of fairness, but under this 
Canon, I have no chance of fairness at all, and 
every man that looks at the thing and goes over its 
provisions must see that it is nothing but a, wea,pon 
put in the hands of any one who chooses to silence 
an individual Presbyter of a Diocese. It is simply 
a contrivance to get rid of a man against whom a 
person may have a quarrel. 

I move tiiat this subject be referred back to the 
Committee on Canons, with instructions to substi- 
tute for it bodily the old Canon 34 of the year 1832. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I understand that 
the Chair has decided that the motion to commit 
with instructions allows something fuither to be 
said. 

Mr. BURaWIN, of Pittsburgh. Permit me to 
rise to a point of order. I ask the Chair to recon- 
sider that decision, from the very fact that, if a 
motion to recommit can be amended by a motion to 
recommit with instructions, we might as well have 
no rule at all on the subject, because it opens up the 
whole question ; and all that a member ha,s to do in 
order to throw the whole matter before the House, 
and do away with the rule, is simply to add to the 
motion to recommit certain instructions which may 
occur to him. at the moment. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I would be glad if 
Dr. Adams would withdraw that amendment. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsui. I would ask if 
any one has seconded my motion ? [Laughter.] 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. The instructions 
not being seconded are not before us. 

Mr. BURGVfllSr, of Pittsburgh. I think we ought 
to have a decision of the Chair on the point I have 
stated, as it is an important one, and the precedent 
is important. 

The PRESIDENT. Tlic Chaii' v/ould like to have 
his judgment informed on that question whether a 
motion to recommit with instructions is debatable. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. That is not the 
point I make, but whether, when a motion to recom- 
mit has been made, any motion to amend it can be 
made ; whether the House must not be brought to a 
vote without debate. If they recommit it, the mat- 
ter is not before the House ; if they refuse to recom- 
mit it, then a motion will be in order to recommit 
Avith instructions, but you cannot have a motion to 
recommit amended. i 

The PRESIDENT. Will some of the learned gen- 
tlemen upon rules of order enlighten the mind of 
the Chair upon that point ? 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I do not see that I 
that question is legitimately before us. The motion 
to recommit with instructions was not seconded, 
and the question simply stands on my motion to re- 
commit generally. 

The PRESIDENT. Then, of course, the other 
question need not be decided now. It will be de- i 
cided hereafter when it arises. The question is on ' 
the motion to recommit the report to the Committee i 
on Canons. ! 

The motion was agreed to. 

ORGANIZATION OF NEW DIOCESES. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business on the | 
Calendar will be stated by the Secretary, I 
The SECRETARY. The next business is the re- 



solution reported by the Committee on Canons up- 
on the proposed amendment to Section 2, of Canon 
6, of Title III., relating to the organization of new 
Dioceses. The resolution is : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That Section 2, of Canon 6, of Title III., be 
amended, so as to read as follows : 

"Sec. 2. In case there should be no Bishop 
who can call such Primary Convention, pursuant to 
the foregoing provision, then the duty of calling such 
Convention for the purpose of organizing, and the 
duty of fixing the time and place of its meeting, shall 
be vested in the Standing Committee of the Diocese 
within the limits of which the new one is erected, or 
of the Standing Committee of the eldest of the Dio- 
ceses by the junction of which or parts of which the 
new Diocese may be formed ; and such Standing 
Committee shall make such call immediately after 
the ratification of a division by the General Conven- 
tion. " 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. The 
Convention will perceive that the only change sug- 
gested here is the introduction of a clause whereby 
the Staliding Committee of a divided Diocese can 
caU a Primary Convention. The case supposed is 
that of a Diocese divided, and the Bishop dying 
subsequent to the division. In the Canon 
as it stands there is provision in that case 
for the callmg of the Primary Convention 
by the Standing Committee of the eldest of two or 
more Dioceses by the union of parts of which the 
new Diocese is formed, but there is no provision for 
the calling of a Prunary Convention where the Dio- 
cese is divided. This simply makes provision for 
that case. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

JIESSAGES FROM THE BISHOPS. 

A message (No. 12) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the passage by that House of the following 
resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring). 
That Subsection 4, of Section 7, of Canon 12, of Title 
I. of the Digest be amended by inserting after the 
words ' General Theological Seminary ' these 
words, viz. : ' professors and tutors in any university 
or college which is maintained and governed by 
two or more Dioceses associated for that purpose.'"" 

On motion of Rev. Dr. WILLIAJ^IS, of Georgia, 
the message was referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

A message (No. 13) from the House of Bishops 
announced the passage by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That Section 1, of Canon 4, of Title I. be amended 
by inserting after the word ' Diocese ' the words 
' and Missionary District.' " 

On motion of Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia, 
the message was referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

A message (No. 14) from the House of Bishops 
announced the appointment by that House of 
the Bishops of Nebraska, Central New York, and 
New Hampshire as members on its part of the Joint 
Committee to nominate a Board of Missions. 

MOTION TO RECOMmT. 

The PRESIDENT. I would here call attention to 
a. point of order that was before us a short time ago, 
but not for the purpose of deciding it arbitrarily, as 
it is not before us, but that I may be advised here- 
after the views of those having experience in such 
matters. I perceive that Mr. Cushing, in his Man- 
ual, says that ' ' motions to commit or recommit may 
be amended by instructions to the committee." 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Does he say that 
that is the case whore the motion to recommit must 



107 



"be decided without delaate ? A motion to recommit 
imder Ciishing's Manual is debatable, but mider om- 
i-ules it is not debatable, and therefore it strikes me 
that our rule overrides the usual parliamentary 
rule. 

The PRESIDENT. That is a question for the 
House to consider. I had a very distinct remem- 
brance that a proposition to instruct a committee 
changed the character of the motion to recommit. 

PROPOSED COMMITTEE ON RULES. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. Is it 
in order now to give notice of a motion to be made 
to-morrow in regard to the appointment of a Com- 
mittee on the Rules of the House ? 

The PRESIDENT. I suppose the House will by 
general consent at this late hour agree to receive al- 
most any business v/hich is proposed. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. We 
spend a great deal of time in this body in discuss- 
ing the rules of the House. I give notice that to- 
morrow I shall move to amend the rules so as to 
provide for the appointment by the Chair of a 
Standing Committee on the Rules of the House. 

REMOVAL OF COMMUNICANTS. 

The PRESIDENT. The next husiness on the Cal- 
endar will be reported. 

The Secretary read the following resolution, re- 
ported by the Committee on Canons, to whom was 
referred the proposed amendment to Section 1, of 
Canon 12, of Title II., so as to require a certificate 
to be produced by every communicant upon his re- 
moval from one parish to another, and forbidding 
any rector to receive a communicant without such 
letter or certificate : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
amendment to Section 1, of Ca,uon 12, of Title II., 
of the Digest." 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut, I move that the 
resolution be adopted. 

The motion was agreed to. 

EXPENSES OF PRESIDING BISHOP. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report 
the next business on the Calendar. 

The Secretary read the Resolutions reported by 
the Committee on Expenses, the first being : 

"Resolved, That the Treasurer of this Conven- 
tion be instructed to reserve $500, subject to the 
•call of the Presiding Bishop, for the payment of 
such expenses as may be incurred by him in the 
discharge of the duties incident to his office during 
the next three years." 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I move the adop- 
tion of the resolution. 

The motion was agreed to. 

SALARY OP SECRETARIES. 

The Secretary read the next resolution of the 
Committee on Expenses, viz. : 

"Resolved, That the Treasurer be instructed to 
pay to the Secretary of the House of Clerical 
and Lay Deputies the sum of $750, and to the 
Secretary of the House of Bishops $250." 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I do not think 
that for the duties of the Secretary of this House 
$750 are enough, and I move to amend the resolu- 
tion by making it $1,000. The Secretary of the 
House of Bishops has nothing to do with the publi- 
cation of the Journal or its distribution, while the 
Secretary of this House has an immense amount of 
work to do. I am free to say, from my own person- 
al Imowledge, as having been Secretary of this 
House in the years 1841, 1844, and 1847, that as the 
Church has increased it is impossible for the Secre- 
tary to perform his duties and meet his expenses for 



a less sum than $1,000. I therefore move to insert 
$1,000 instead of $750. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The resolution as amended was adopted. 

ASSESSMENT ON THE DIOCESES. 

The Seci^etary read the next resolution of the 
Committee on Expenses, as follow^s : 

"Resolved, That incase the assessment of $o 
for each clergyman, as provided by Canon for the 
payment of the incidental expenses of the Conven- 
tion, should be found insufficient for that purpose, 
the Secretary of this House and the Treasurer joint- 
ly are hereby authorized and directed to make such 
additional assessments on the Dioceses respectively, 
and the Treasurer to collect the same, as may be 
found necessary for the payment of such expenses." 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Mass. I would hke to 
ask whether that has been our usual custom or not. 
If it has been, I have nothing to say against it ; but 
it seems loose for us to leave a matter so much at 
odds and ends. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair is informed that it 
has been the usual custom. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. It is neces- 
sary. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. I will ex- 
plain that it is impossible now to say exactly what 
our expenses will be. The Canon provides for an 
assessment of $3; but it is always found neces- 
sary, at least it has been for some time, to pro- 
vide a little more liberally than that ; but exactly 
how much we cannot tell. The Committee had this 
under consideration, and on considering the matter 
thought that this vras the best way that we could 
settle the question. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop- 
tion of the resolution. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

THANKS TO TRUSTY CHURCH. 

The Secretary read the next resolution of the 
Committee on Expenses, as follows : 

"Resolved, That we gratefully recognize the 
liberality of Trinity Church in its provision for the 
welfare, comfort, and convenience of the members 
of this Convention, whereby facilities for doing our 
work have been so amply provided and our ex- 
penses so materially reduced." 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. This resolution 
we shall all be ready to vote for, but it will come 
certainly much better towards the close, inasmuch 
as we are thanking when we have only half received 
that we are thanking for. 

The SECRETARY. I will state to the House 
that this has reference to the very liberal provision 
made in behalf of the House of stationery and every 
possible convenience in the ivay of conducting our 
business. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Still, we can re- 
ceive some more. I have not the slightest objection 
to thank them now, if yon will allow a motion to 
thank them afterwards. [Laughter.] 

The SECRETARY. We will do that. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop- 
tion of the resolution. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

ADOPTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Cal- 
endar will now he reported by the Secretary. 

The SECRETARY. The Committee on Amend- 
ments to the Constitution reported that the change 
in the fifth article of the Constitution was not adop- 
ted, and the resolution which is now before us is 
Mr. Burgwin's resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee be discharged 
from the further consideration of the subject." 



108 



Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I move that 
that resohition be made the order of the day for 
Thursday, at two o'clock. My reason is that 
there is another matter pertaining to the 
same thing now before the same Committee, 
which before that time will be reported upon. I 
desire, as a member of that Committee, and 
as one interested in this matter, that this reso- 
lution lie over until next Thursday, and be then 
made the order of the day for two o'clock, so that 
both reports may come before the House at the 
same time, as they both pei'tain to the same sub- 
ject ; and I may desire to be heard upon them. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. My motion was 
made, as members will remember, simply for the 
purpose of bringing what is a very important mat- 
ter before the House, and that is whether, when this 
House have passed a Canon or adopted an amend- 
ment to the Constitution, and sent it to the House 
of Bishops, and that House adjourn before 
the three days have expired within which 
they may return it with their objections or 
amend it, such a Canon has the force of law by vir- 
tue of the expiration of the term for which the Bi- 
shops are in session. I do not propose to discuss the 
question now. I simply say that, when the Commit- 
tee made their report and decided that such a Canon 
or such a proposed amendment fell, I was unwilling 
that this House should concur in that view without 
an opportunity of having the matter considered be- 
fore the House. I therefore concur most heartily in 
the motion of the gentleman from Texas to fix a 
time when the matter may come up, and this House 
can then decide as to whether they will agree with 
the views of the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution or not. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. The question at issue 
is this : There has been proposed a constitutional 
amendment allowing Dioceses of vast proportions, 
too large for the supervision of one Bishop, to set 
off a part of their territory into missionary 
jurisdictions, with the consent of this Con- 
vention. That amendment was proposed 
by this House three years ago. It went to 
the House of Bishops. They took no action 
upon it, by mere accident. Our Secretary sent out 
the proposition to the several Dioceses. There has 
been no return from them of any dissent ; and now, 
when it is asked that this Convention ratify that 
constitutional amendment, the question is referred 
to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution ; and that Committee report 
to this House that the initiatory steps were 
never completed. The gentleman from Pitts- 
burgh desires, as well as myself, that further 
information in regard to this matter should 
be laid before this House, and further consideration 
be had. For this reason, I have moved that it be 
made the subject of our consideration on Thursday 
next at two o'clock. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to postpone the consideration of the resolution to 
Thursday, at two o'clock. 
The motion was agreed to. 

TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report 
the next business on the Calendar. 

The SECRETARY. The report of the Committee 
on Canons, to whom was referred the subject of so 
amending Sections 2 and 3, of Canon 13, of Title I., 
so as to provide that the testimonials of Bishops- 
elect shall be sent to the several Diocesan Standing 
Committees and the several Bishops, in all cases, in- 
stead of, as now, to the General Convention when 
within six months of the meeting of that body, 
reported for adoption the following resolution : 

''Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 



discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
amendment to Sections 2 and 3, of Canon 13, of Title 
I. of the Digest. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I move to make 
that subject the special order for Friday at two 
o'clock. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Is there 
any reason why those reports should take prece- 
dence of other business ? Why should they not go 
regularly on the Calendar as other repoi-ts '{ 

The PRESIDENT. They are on the Calendar 
now, and we are acting upon them. The question 
is on the motion to make this subject the special 
order for Friday at two o'clock. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I think my 
point is well taken, on f urther reflection. The point 
is not whether it has been on the Calendar or not ; 
but why can it not stay on the Calendar, and come 
up when we regularly reach it again ? 

The PRESIDENT. That is in the discretion of 
the House. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. If we are 
to charge every hour on Thursday and every hour 
on Friday, as we are beginning to do, with special 
orders of the day, it will entirely interfere with the 
regular busmess of the House. 

The PRESIDENT. The question has been taken 
on making this subject a special order. If the same 
motion is made in regard to the next business, your 
argument will be in order. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
move to reconsider the vote by v/hich the resolution 
was made the special order for Friday. 

The PRESIDENT. Did you vote in the ma- 
jority ? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
voted, inadvertently, in the majority, but I now 
see no reason why' we should postpone the subject 
until Friday, when we have ten or fifteen minutes 
to act upon it to-day. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I beg to op- 
pose the motion to reconsider. Many of the re- 
ports on the Calendar have been acted upon; but 
upon those reports as to which there are differences 
of opinion, I think an opportunity should be given 
to bring those differences of opinion to the notice of 
the House, that we may act intelligently. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Those 
gentlemen are charged v/ith that information now 
as well as they will be on Friday. When gentlemen 
bring measures before us for adoption, we expect 
that they have considered them maturely, so that a 
postponement of one day or two days is not a mat- 
ter of consequence, and it is fatal to the regular 
deliberations of this body to have these continual 
special orders made unless there is some good reason 
for it. 

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina, If there is 
any question proper to be set apart for a particular 
time, this is one of those questions, and I hope the 
House will not reconsider the decision it has made. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
It was not my intention to shorten debate, but to 
go on with the matter now, and if we did not get 
through by four o'clock, to let it come up again to- 
morrow. But as this discussion is consuming so 
much time, I withdraw the motion to reconsider. 

The PRESIDENT. There is nothing more on the 
Calendar, I am told by the Secretary. 

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION. 

Rev. Mr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I offer the 
following as an additional section to Canon 4 of 
Title II., "Of the Dissolution of Pastoral Connec- 
tion," to be referred to the Committee on Canons : 

"Whenever any minister of this Church shall 
absent himself from his parish for a period of time 



109 



exceeding three months, without the consent or 
approbation of the vestry thereof, the vestry may 
declare the parish vacant, and it shall so be." 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to refer to the Committee on Canons. 

The motion vras agreed to. 

SENTENCES OF SUSPENSION. 

Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of Nev^ Jersey. I 
offer the following : 

"Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee 
on Canons to enquire and report whether the dis- 
junctive 'or, 'before the words 'at what time,' in 
Section 1, of Canon 10, of Title II., should not be 
changed to the conjunctive 'and,' so as to read as 
follows : 

" Whenever the penalty of suspension shall be in- 
flicted on a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in this Church, 
the sentence shall specify on what teims and at what 
time said penalty shall cease." 

Evidently it was a mistake inadvertently. I there- 
fore move the reference of the resolution to the 
Committee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

LAY EEADERS. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I offer the following : 
"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be in- 
structed to consider and report whether the f oUow-- 
ing subsection should not be added in the printed 
copy of the Digest as Section 2, Canon 9, Title I. 

" The Bishop may at his discretion set apart a lay 
reader at some public service in the Convocation by 
special prayer and benediction, without laying on 
of hands." 

I am informed that that section passed at the last 
Convention, but thi'ough some inadvertence was 
not printed as having been passed. I move that it 
be referred to the Committee on Canons to enquire 
whether it ought to be in the printed Canons. 

The PRESIDENT. My information about it is 
that it was passed by this House, but was not passed 
by the House of Bishops. i 

Mr. MEADS, of Alban.y. I have been informed I 
that it passed by the omission of the House of \ 
Bishops to act upon it within three days while I 
they were in session. This is simply a resolution I 
of enquiry whether the fact be that it has passed or j 
has not. I 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. It can do no I 
harm to pass the resolution. I 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the mo- I 
tion to refer the resolution to the Committee on I 
Canons. i 

The motion was agreed to. i 

The PRESIDENT. The hour of four having ar- j 
rived, the Convention stands adjourned until to- ' 
morrow at ten o'clock. ! 



SEVENTH DAY. i 
Wednesday, October 14, \ 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel, ' 
at ten a.m. 

Morning Prayer was said to the Creed by Rev. 
Robert C. Mc Uwain, of Iowa. The Creed and I 
Prayers were said by Rev. Edmund T. Perkins, 
D.D., of Kentucky, who also said the Litany, The i 
Benediction was pronounced by the Rt. Rev. Hen- \ 
ry Champhn Lay, d.d., ll.d.. Bishop of Easton. j 

The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read i 
and approved. ! 

REPORTS OF committee ON ELECTIONS. I 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the Com- ! 
mittee on Elections, reported a resohition granting 



' the request of Mr. William P. Wheeler, of Ohio, for 
i lea,vo of absence dm'ing the remainder of the session. 

Rev. Mr. MARPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
j move to add, "and that all future applications of 
i that kind be referred to that Committee, with poweijr 
to act " 

I The" PRESIDENT. Had not that better be a sep- 
arate resolution ? 
! Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky. Perhaps the 
! amendment can be acted on at once. 
I The PRESIDENT. The Chair then will put the 
I question. The amendment is that all applications 
; for leave of absence during the remainder of the 
j session be referred to the Committee on Elections, 
; with power to act. 
I The amendment was agreed to. 

The resolution as amended was agreed to. 
j Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the 
i Committee on Elections, also reported that evidence 
had been presented of the appointment of Mr. Taze- 
I well Taylor as supplementary Deputy from the 
j Diocese of Virginia, in place of Mr. R, C, L, Mon- 
i cure, and of the appointment of the Rev. WiUiam 
Mimf ord, of Florida, a supplementary Deputy from 
i the Diocese of Florida, in place of the Rev. R. H. 
I Weller, and that these names had been entered by 

the Secretary on the roll. 
: Rev. Mr. 'SHIPMAN, of Kentucky. I am re- 
1 quested also by the Committee to report on another 
j matter, which I shall have to do somewhat inf orm- 
! ally. The Rev. J. H. Hopkins, Jr. , has presented to 
1 the Committee satisfactory evidence of his election 
j as a supplementary Deputy by the Diocese of Al- 
I bany, and of his designation "by the Bishop of Al- 
: bany to the place of the Rev. William Payne, d.d., 
! of the same Diocese. The Committee, however, 
j having had the matter under consideration, are 
: clearly of the opinion that, as the Rev. Dr. Payne 
I is absent by leave of the House, and for a 
I few days only, no vacancy exists in the re- 
I presentation of the Diocese of Albany, and that, 
1 therefore, no supplementary Deputy ought to be ad- 
mitted. I make this report as part of the action of 
the Committee, and at the urgent request of the sup- 
plementary Deputy whose certificate has been re- 
ferred to, proposing no action for the House, but 
leaving the House to oi'iginate such action as in its 
judgment it may deem proper. 

SYNOD OF ANGLICAN CHURCHES. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut, submit- 
ted the following report : 

"The Committee on the Prayer-Book, to whom 
was referred the memorial of the Rev. John H. 
Anketell and others, asking this House to take such 
measm*es as in their wisdom may seem proper to- 
ward the assembling at as early a day as possible of 
a Synod of all the Bishops in communion with the 
See of Canterbury, for the consideration of all 
questions relating to the English Version of the 
Holy Scriptures and the Creeds, and the relations 
of the Anglican Church to other Christian bodies, 
beg leave to propose for adoption the following 
resolution : 

" Resolved, That it is inexpedient in this body to 
take any action on the subject," 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution wHl be placed 
on the Calendar. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut, Can- 
not the resolution be acted upon now ? 

The PRESIDENT, If the House is ready for the 
question it can be acted on a,t once. The Chair 
hears no objection to present action. 

The resolution was adopted. 

RELATIONS WITH CANADIAN CHURCH. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Presi- 
dent, it will be remembered that a Joint Commit- 



110 



tee was appointed by tlie Hoiise of Bishops and the 
House of Clerical and Lay Deputies to meet the 
Delegation from the Provincial Synod of Canada in 
regard to such measures as that Delegation desired 
^4)0 bring before this General Convention. The Com- 
mittee met, and in order to explain what follows I 
will read the first resolution which was passed : 

"Resolved, That three copies of the proceedings 
of this Joint Committee be prepared by the Most 
Rev. the Lord Bishop of Montreal, the Chairman, 
and Secretary, and placed in the hands of the Del- 
egation of the Provincial Synod of Canada, of the 
House of Bishops and of the House of Clerical and 
Lay Deputies resjiectively, to be presented to their,^ 
constituent bodies." 

Then follow v\rritten resolutions, which were 
passed by tMs Joint Committee, and perhaps it will 
be necessary to read them in order that the House 
may dispose of them as it may think best : 

"At a meeting of the Joint Committee of the 
House of Bishops and of the House of Clerical and 
Lay Deputies appointed for the purpose, with the 
Delegation from the Provincial Synod of Canada; 
there being present of the latter, 
The Most Rev. the LORD BISHOP of Montreal, 

Metropolitan. 
The Right Rev. the LORD BISHOP of Quebec. 
The Rev. Dean GEDDES, Rector of Hamilton 

and Prolocutor. : 
The Venerable Archdeacon BALCH, j 
The Rev. Canon ELLIG-OOD. 

The Rev. Canon KETCHUM, and , 
The Rev. H. ROE, Professor of Divinity, Lennox- i 

viUe University, i 
And of the former, i 
The Right Rev. the BISHOP of Long Island. ^ 
The Right Rev. the BISHOP of Ohio. | 
The Rev. WILLIAM RUDDER, d.d. I 
The Rev. ALEXANDER H. VINTON, d.d. 
The Rev. ISRAEL FOOTE, d.d. i 
The Hon, HAMILTON FISH. I 
The Hon. SAMUEL B. RUGGLES, and i 
Mr. ORLANDO MEADS. 

" The Most Rev. the Lord Bishop of Montreal being 
in the Chair, tlie following resolutions were unani- 
mously passed, on the motion of the Rt. Rev. the 
Lord Bishoi) of Quebec, seconded by the Rev. Canon 
Ketclium : 

" It was resolved, i 

"That it be recommended that it be made by the j 
Provincial Synod of Canada the duty of all Bishops i 
in the Canadian Church to require testimonials and j 
letters dimissory from the Bishop of the Diocese in | 
which a clergyman has last served, before granting i 
such clergyman a license, if it be found the case is 
not already provided for. j 

" On motion of the Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Long 
Island, seconded by the Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of 
Quebec, it was 

" Resolved, That clergymen having charge of pa- 
rishes and missions be requested to furnish fami- 
lies and individuals in their respective cures, who 
are about to emigrate to the United States or to 
Canada, such letters of commendation, and other 
information touching their character and wants, as 
will secm^e to them, upon their arrival, fraternal 
welcome and pastoral sympathy and care in the 
common fold in which they have been nurtured : 
and that, when practicable, duplicate letters be 
sent to the clergymen under whose parochial charge 
the person or jDersons immigrating may come, 

"On motion of the Venerable Archdeacon Balch, 
seconded by the Rev, Dr. Rudder, it was 

"Resolved, That on the suspension or deposition 
of any clergyman from the ministry, by a Bishop 
of either Church, notice of the same shall be given 
by the Bishop suspending or deposing said clergy- 



man to all the other Bishops of the Church in th(> 
United States and in British North America. 

" On motion of the Rev. Dr. Vinton, seconded br 
the venerable Archdeacon Balch, it was 

"Resolved, That, until some organ for collecting 
and diffusing necessary information be established 
by the Church in Canada, it be recommended to the 
Board of Missions to take oixler that a department 
of The Spirit of Missions be devoted to the use of 
the Canadian Church, under an editor to be appoint- 
ed by that Church, in order that each Church m^ay 
know what the other is doing to preach the Gospel 
to all men. 

" On motion of the Rev. Dean Geddes, seconded 
by the Hon. Samuel B. Ruggies, it was 

"Resolved, That it is desirable that this Joint 
Committee should continue in existence, and hold 
its sessions and prosecute its work during the next 
three years, by correspondence or otherwise, in 
order that such measures as have been suggested 
may be further matured and reported to the Genei-al 
Convention and the Provincial Synod of 1877, 

" On motion of the Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Ohio, 
seconded by the Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Long Island, 
it was 

"Resolved, That three copies of the proceedings 
of this J oint Conmiittee be prepared and certified 
by the Most Rev. the Lord Bishop of Montreal, 
the Chairman, and the Secretary, and placed in the 
hands of the Delegation from the Provincial Synod 
of Canada, the House of Bishops, and the House of 
Clerical and Lay Deputies respectively^, to be x>re- 
sented to their constituent bodies. 

"On motion of the Rt, Rev. the Bishop of Long 
Island, seconded by the Hon. Hamilton Fish, it was 
"Resolved, That, as it has been found impractica- 
ble to complete the business assigned to it, the Joint 
Committee ask to be continued until the next Gene- 
ral Convention, 

(Signed) " A. MONTREAL, Chairman. 

WILLIAM RUDDER, Secretary.- 
I read these, and asli the House to dispose of 
them as they may think best. It is suggested that, 
it would be well to have the repoi't printed. If that 
be the sense of the House, I move that five hundred 
copies be prmted for the use of the House. 

The PRESIDENT, The question is on the motion 
to print live hundred copies of the report. 
The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. I think it proper at this 
period, in connection with the report which has 
iust been i-ead, to read a paper addressed to the 
Pi^sident of the House : 

"New York, October 13, 1874. 
"At a meeting of the Delegation from the Provin- 
cial Synod of Canada to the General Convention of 
the Church in the United States, the Lord Bishop 
of Quebec in the Chair, it was, on motion of the 
Reverend Dean Geddes, Prolocutor, seconded by 
the Venerable Archdeacon Balch — 

" Resolved, That the delegation from the Provin- 
cial Synod cannot return home without expressing 
their grateful appreciation of the cordial and affec- 
tionate manner in which they have been received by 
the General Convention, and of the hospitality ex- 
tended to them by citizens of New York and 
Brooklyn, and this Delegation feel assured that it 
will afford great pleasure to the Provincial Synod 
and to the Canadian Church should a delegation 
from this General Convention be appointed to attend 
the next triennial meeting of the Provincial Swod, 
which meets in September, 1877. 
i " J. W. QUEBEC, Chaiiman. 

I " Lewis P. W. Balch, Secretary," 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I suggest that 
that be placed on the Calendar, and taken up ^vit\l 
the previous report when printed. 



Ill 



The PRESIDENT. It is proposed that the paper 
go on the Calendar, and bo taken up in connection 
with the report just ordered to be pruited. That 
couroe will be pursued. 

OSDER OF DEACONESSES. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTIKGTON, of Massachusetts, sub- 
mitted the following report : 

•'The Joint Committee appointed at the last 
General Convention to consider the expediency of 
reviving- the primitive order of Deaconesses, after 
giving the subject careful consideration, unani- 
mously recommend the passage of the following 
Ca:3on: 

" Of Deaconesses or Sisters. 

''Sec. 1. Women of devout character and 
appi-oved fitness may be set apai t by any Bishop of 
this Church for the work of a Deaconess or Sister, 
according to such form as shall be authorized by 
the Bishop of a^ny Diocese. 

Sec. 2. The duties proper to a Deaconess or Sister 
are declared to be the care of our Lord's poor and 
sick, the education of the young, the religious in- 
struction of the neglected, and the work of moral 
reformation. 

••Sec. 3. No woman shall be set apart for the 
work of a Deaconess or Sister until she shall be 
twenty-live years of age, unless the Bishop for 
special reasons shall deem it expedient to admit 
candidates at an earlier age, the age of admis- 
sion in no case to be less than twenty-one years ; 
it being further provided that no woman shaU be so 
.set apart until she shall have laid before the Bishop 
testimonials certifying (a) that she is a commvmi- 
cant in good standing in this Church ; (b) that she 
possesses such characteristics as, in the judgment of 
the persons testifying, fit her for at least one of the 
branches of duty above defined. Such testimonials 
shall be signed by one Presbyter of this Church, and 
by five lay commimicants of the same, of whom 
two shall be men and three women. The Bishop 
shall also satisfy himseK that the applicant has had 
an adequate preparation for her v/ork, both techni- 
cal and rehgious, which preparation shall have 
covered the period of at least one year. 

"Sec, 4. No Deaconess or Sister shall work of- 
ficially in a Diocese without the express authority 
in writing of the Bishop of that Diocese. 

•• Sec. 5. A Dea.coness or Sister may at any 
time resign her oflice to the ecclesiastical authority 
from which -she received it ; but no Deaconess or 
Sister, having once given up her commission, shall 
be reappointed, imless, in the judgment of the 
Bishop, such resignation was for weighty cause. 

"Sec. 6. A Deaconess or Sister may be trans- 
ferred from one Diocese to another by letters di- 
KiLMsoi-y, upon request of the Bishop of the Diocese 
to which she is transferred. 

Sec. 7. The Constitution and Rules for the 
liome government of any community of Deaconesses 
sliaU have the sanction of the Bishop of the Diocese 
in which such community exists ; and all books of 
devotion and fonnularies of worship used in such 
community shall have the like sanction, and shall 
be in harmony with the usages of this Church and 
the principles of the Book of Common Prayer. 
HORATIO POTTER, Bishop of New York. 
RICHARD H. WILMER, Bishop of Alabama. 
A. N. LITTi.SJOHN, Bishop of Long Island. 
JOHN FRANKLIN SPAULDING, Bishop of Colo- 
rada. 

WILLIAM R. HUNTINGTON, Clerical Deputy 
from Massachusetts. 

WlLLlK^l WELSH, Lay Deputy from Pennsyl- 
vania. 

SAMUEL B. RUGGLES, Lay Deputy from New 
York." 



I Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of MassachuscttP. I 
should say that this report has the signatures of all 
the members of the Committee who are present in 
the Convention, and it has the assent of the only 
absent member who is a member of th£ Convention, 
one member of the Committee having ceased to bo 
such by failing of re-election to the Triennial 

j Convention. In other words, it is a strictly unan- 

j imous report. I move its reference to the Commit- 

j tee on Canons. 

I Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania, I rise to second 
I the motion, and if a moment of explanation is 
[ allowed, I would merely ask the various members 
of the House at their leisure to visit the "Sisters' in- 
stitutions in this city and the Deaconesses' institution 
in Long Island. I think if we visit those institu- 
tions and see their work we shall be enabled to vote 
inteliigentlv on this Canon when it comes up. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the report of 
this special committee be referred to the Commit- 
tee on Canons, 
The motion was agreed to. 
; Rev. Mr. PINCKNEY, of South Carolina. May 
I request the Lay Deputy fi'om Pennsylvania to 
state where those institutions of Sisters are to be 
found ? I should be glad to know, 
Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania, There are two in 
I New York, The Bishop of New York will make 
the way easy. There is one in Long island. The 
Bishop of Long Island will give every one facilities 
I for reaching it. I will, however, have the specific 
directions where the houses are laid upon the desk 
of the Secretary, so that any member who desires 
to visit them may have the information asked for. 

CRUELTY TO ANniALS. 

I Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania, The foUowing 
] invitation was handed to me, with the request that 
j I would read it. It is addressed to the General Con- 
I vention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, now 
j sitting in St. John's Chapel, New York City : 
j "The American Society for the Prevention of 
i Cruelty to Animals hereby tenders to the Conven- 
i vention a cordial invitation to visit the Head- 
j quarters, corner of Fourth Avenue and East 
i Twenty-second Street. The Society believes that 
an examination of its work and objects will induce 
the members of the Convention to aid its humane 
mission by personal advocacy among their parishi- 
oners and friends of its unceasing pleas for mercy 
j to the dumb creation. 
1 " With profound respect, 

I ''HENRY BERGH, President." 

A word or two. These points have been handed 
to me, which, I think, will increase the interest in 
the institution : 

1. This Society has now twenty-seven branches 
in as many States and Territories, all having the 
hke laws and common seal and badge. 

2, It bears the approval of the living and the 
I dead — ^the latter by large legacies to it, showing 
I that its work is not limited to time. 

} 3, Its work is limited to no country or nation. 
There are to-day two branch societies in Calcutta 

! and Bombay. And on the left bank of the nver 

j Ganges stands a column of red granite bearing an 

j inscription, recently translated, found to be over 

' two thousand years old, and a law against cruelty 

j to animals, 

I 4, It has the approbation of the English Church, 

i Very lately the Lord Bishop of Manchester, in 

I "Westminster Abbey, preached a sennon before the 

1 English Society, and the Queen and ablest men 

i in the Chm"ch are all members of it. 

i PETITIONS AND SIEJIORIALS. 

I Rev. Dr. BEARDS LEY, of Connecticut, present- 
; ed a memorial of the Diocesan Convention of Con- 



112 



necticut, asking the General Convention to take 
measures toward securing for use in Divine worship 
an English version of the Creed commonly called 
the Nicene Creed, as conformable as may be to the 
oi-iginal text ; which was referred to the Committee 
on the Prayer-Book. 

Rer. Mr. RICHARDSON, of Texas, presented a 
memorial of the Diocesan Convention of Texas on 
the Hymnal, which was referred to the Joint Com- 
mittee on the Hj^mnal. 

Rev. Mr. RICHARDSON, of Texas, presented a 
memorisi of the Diocesan Convention of Texas, on 
the subject of establishing a court of appeal ; 
which was referred to the Committee on Amend- 
ments to the Constitution. 

Rev. Mr. PERKINS, of Kentucky, presented a 
memorial of the Diocesan Convention of Kentucky, 
on the subject of Ritual Uniformity; which was 
referred to the Committee on Canons. 

Rev. Dr. CROSDALE, of Easton, presented a me- 
morial of the Diocesan Convention of Easton, touch- 
ing a vei-sion of the Nicene Creed ; which v/as re- 
ferred to the Committee on the Prayer-Book. 

FAREWELL OF CANADIAN METROPOLITAN. 

The PRESIDENT. The Most Rev. the Bishop 
of Montreal and Metropolitan of Canada is present, 
and desires to take leave of the House. 

The members rose. 

The BISH:0P0F MONTREAL. Mr. President 
and gentlemen of this House, before I quit this city, 
which I propose to do this evening, and before 
these doors are closed against visitors (which will 
be in a. few minutes, I understand), I am anxious to 
say a very few words to you, to express, from my 
veiy heart, the gratitude I feel for the kindness 
which you have shown us. I leave this city and this 
Convention with feelings, I can assm'e you, of great 
admiration, and great or greater gratitude — of ad- 
miration when I have looked upon this vast and im- 
I)ortant and august assembly, an assembly to which 
I was going to apply the epithet of orderly, and 
v/liich is an orderly assembly considering its vast 
numbers ; and I would offer a very humble — I was 
going to say "hint" — but I would rather say a 
thought which has come across me from attending 
the deliberations in this Church. That thought is, 
and that wish in my own heart is, that if I ever in 
(jrod's providence am spared to attend another Con- 
vention in New York, I do hope and trust it may be 
in some great building erected specially for the pur- 
pose and specially worthy of this noble assembly. 

I leave the city also with admiration at the vast 
meeting which I attended last night, certainly the 
grandest and most noble rehgious meeting I ever 
attended in my life, a meeting which testifies to the 
great hold which your Church and its work has up- 
on the affections of the mass, when I think of the 
great numbers which v/ere gathered in that theatre 
last night. 

I also leave this city with feelings of great grati- 
tude to you for the kind manner in which you 
have received me and those brethren who have ac- 
companied me, and who are, like myself, strangers 
among you. We feel your Idndness, and we desire 
long to feel it, and I am sure we shall not easily 
forget it. I only wish that there could be some way 
in which we could reciprocate it. 

I thank you, too, for the specially kind manner in 
which you have received my dear brother, the 
Bishop of Lichfield, not only, ! am sure, from the 
intrinsic merits and loveliness of his Christian 
character, bub also because he comes among you 
as a sort of representative of our own Mother 
Church, and to many of us our common mother 
country. The Church of England is strong; the 
Church in the United States is strong, I feel sure 
from what I have seen ; the Church also in Canada 



is strong; but 'oh ! how much stronger each and all 
of us would be, how much more imposing a front 
should we present to our foes, how much more 
gloriously should we carry on God's great work 
committed to us, if we become even more closely 
drawn together than we are at present ; and I do hope 
and trust that the result of this meeting of the 
Convention will be a larger feeling, a closer draw- 
ing together of those blessed bonds which unite us 
in Christ and unite us as members of the same body. 

I now thank you for having listened to the fev/ 
plain words which I have uttered. I thank you on 
my behalf and on behalf of my brethren who are 
with me, and I desire from my heart to pray that 
God's blessing may rest upon you and upon that 
j Church which you represent. 

The Bishop retired, and the members resumed 
their seats. 

THE SECRET SESSION. 

Rev. Dr. LOCKE, of lUinois. I offer the follow- 
ing resolution : 

"Resolved, That when this House goes into 
secret session at twelve o'clock meridian, any visit- 
! ing clergy or laymen from the Dioceses of Wiscon- 
1 sin or Ilhnois shall be allowed to be present, if 
! they so desire." 

i It seems to me that explains itself. Members of 
I the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Illinois 
I are here, and would like to be present, 
i Rev. Mr. MARBLE, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
1 rise to a point of order. Is the consideration of 
that resolution now in order, the Chair having just 
caUed for the order of the day— resolutions and mo- 
tions ? 

The PRESIDENT. This is a resolution. 
Rev. Dr. LOCKE, of Illinois. It is a privileged 
question. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not know about it being 
a privileged question ; but it is a, resolution and can 
be offered. If objected to, of course it goes on the 

Mr. CHURCHILL, of Kentuckv. I object to it. 

Rev. Dr. AYR AULT, of Central New York. It is a 
matter of privilege and of courtesy. As we are about 
to go into secret session on the order of the day, I 
take it we are quite competent to entertain such a 
resolution, as it bears especially on the matter which 
is to be brought to our notice at this time. I do not 
wish to enter into any extended advocacy of it. 
If it does not commend itself to members of 
this Convention on its own account, surely no 
labored argument could convince any one who 
hesitates for a moment. It seems to me sim- 
ply natural and proper that those who are most 
deeply interested in the subject which we have now 
for our consideration should be allowed by courtesy 
to be present at our deliberations, having no vote or 
voice — simply as a matter of courtesy, not as a mat- 
ter of right. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut, I ask whether 
any resolution of this kind does not require a day's 
I notice ? 

The PRESIDENT. I was just looking at the 
j niles to get the answer to that question and to some 

others raised in regard to this resolution. 
I Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. The Chair will 
find that the twenty-eighth rule renders this resolu- 
tion out of order: "No amendment of these rules 
shall be made unless one day's notice shall have 
been given of the motion to amend." This resolu- 
tion changes the rule, and requires a day's notice. 

The PRESIDENT. That is the decision of the 
Chair. 

i Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. I 
I venture to say that this does not come within th©^ 

category of ordinary resolutions. 
! Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. It changes a 
^ rule. 



113 



Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. It 
is simply and solely a question of privilege, and 
therefore I contend that it is proper for our consid- 
eration before we proceed to the matter which is 
the order of the day. 

Mr. FISH, of ]S"ew York. Mr. President, I sub- 
mit that this resolution is entirely out of order. It 
is practically a motion to reconsider the order 
of this House to sit with closed doors.* That 
order was passed some two or three days since, 
and the time within which a motion to recon- 
sider can ba made has expired. I therefore hold, 
and submit to the Chair, that the resolution is out of 
order. 

The PRESIDENT. I think it is. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that we 
proceed to consider the order of the day. 

The PRESIDENT. No motion is necessary for 
that pm-pose. 

Rev. Mr. BARBER, of Easton. I wish to offer a 
Besolution. 

The PRESIDENT. It is too late, because the or- 
der of the day is called for. This is the hour fixed 
for the consideration of the reports of the Commit- 
tee on the Consecration of Bishops, which, by a rule 
of the House, are to be considered with closed 
doors. Persons not Deputies will retire from the 
House. 

The House, was cleared and remained in secret 
session till the hour of adjournment, w^n it ad- 
journed till to-morrow at ten o'clock a.m.^ when it 
meets with closed doors to resume the business mi- 
der consideration to-day. 



EIGHTH DAY. 

Thursday, October 15. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel, at 
ten A.M. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psalter 
by Rev. W. T. Dickinson Dalzell, d.d., of Louisiana. 
The Lessons were read by Rev. Christopher S. Lef- 
fingwell, of Maine. The Creed and Prayers were 
said by Rev. Montgomery Schuyler, d.d., of Mis- 
souri. The Benediction was pronomiced by the Rt. 
Rev. Henry Adams Naely, D.D., Bishop of Maine. 

The PRESIDENT. It was determined yesterday, 
by the last vote taken before the adjournment, that 
we should sit with closed doors to-day in continua- 
tion of the matter then before us. I suppose that 
the spirit, and even the letter, of that order requires 
that the House be cleared now. 
_ Mr. RUG-G-LES, of New York. I rise to a ques- 
tion of privilege. 

Mr. Li\^INGSTON, of New York. Do I under- 
stand the Chair that v*^e are to sit with closed 
doors ? 

The PRESIDENT. That is my understanding of 
the resolution i)assed last evening. If it is objected 
to, I will Vv^ait to hear objections before giving the 
order for closing the doors. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. It was a positive 
enactment, v/as it not, that we were to sit 'with 
closed doors ; 

The PRESIDENT. Certainly ; there is no ques- 
tion about that. The doors were to be closed imme- 
diately after Divine service. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I understand 
the Lay Deputy from New i'ork asks the privilege 
of making some explanation before the House is 
closed. 

The PRESIDENT. Very well ; let him do it. 
. Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Mr. President, I 
was informed five minutes ago, for the fiist time, to 
my inexpressible astonishment, that an article ap- 
peared in one of the morning pa,pers saying that I 
had communicated to a reporter at four o'clock yes- 



terday the fact that the House had accepted th.9 
nomination of Dr. Welles. I pronounce the whole 
statement as absolutely false in every possible re- 
spect, i never uttered the one-hundred-thousandth 
part of a syllable relative to any action in our 
secret session. It is an absolute and unquahned 
misstatement^ 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I was asked yes- 
terday to procure for the House the names and resi- 
dences of the various Deaconess institutions and Sis- 
terhoods in New York and Brooklyn. I have pro- 
cured them, and win leave them on the Secretary's 
table, so that copies may be had by any member of 
the House. 

The PRESIDENT. Those who are not members 
of the House will retire, and the doors will be 
closed. 

Rev. Dr. SULLIVAN, of Illinois. Mr. President, 
it is to a question of privilege that I rise, similar, to 
a certain extent, to that brought before the House 
by the Hon. Mr. Ruggles, of this city, to correct a 
statement made in the public papers. 

My attention has been called this morning to 
certain statements in the public papers of this city, 
in which very large and liberal use has been made 
of my name, and use made of it in connections 
which are calculated to prejudice me very 
largely with this House. It had occurred 
to me that the most proper course for 
me would be, with reference to these state- 
ments in the public papers, to write a card of ex- 
planation to the papers, and I think that even yet it 
will be the wisest course for me to follow, because 
these statements are scattered through all the dif- 
ferent papers, four or five, in this city, that I have 
been able to lay hold of. I am not prepared to say 
by whom these statements have been made. They 
have been made by persons, either clergymen or 
laymen, to the reporters of those papers, and by 
them embodied in their columns. I think it would 
occupy too much of the time of this House at the 
present moment to enter fully into these explana- 
tions ; and, perhaps, it would be wisest and best for 
me to reserve them for a letter of explanation, 
which will be visible to all. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
rise to suggest to the gentleman that reporters are 
here and others, and we agreed that after 
Divine service we should close our doors. I think 
we ought not to have anything of this kind. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Illinois 
has finished his explanation, I believe. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
W"e ought to have our doors closed. 

The PRESIDENT. While the doors are being 
closed, there are messages from the House of 
Bishops, which will be laid before the House. 

MESSAGES FROM THE BISHOPS. 

A message (No. 15) was received from the House 
of Bishops announcing the passage by that House 
of the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That this House concurs in the action 
of the House of Deputies increasing the number of 
the Joint Committee on the Standard Prayer-Book, 
and, reappointing as members of said Committee, 
on the part of this House, the Bishops of Rhode 
Island and Vermont, adds to the Committee the 
Bishop of Central Pennsylvania." 

A message (No. 16) was received from the House 
of Bishops announcing the passage by that House of 
tiie following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), That Canon 13 of Title I. be 
amended by changing the words "missionary juris- 
diction," wherever they occur, into the words 
" missionary district." 

A message (No. I'i) was received from the House) 



114 



of Bishops, announcing the passage by that House 
of the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), That Section 1, of Canon 2, of Title 
I., be amended by substituting in place of the 
words 'Any five Bishops of this Church,' the 
words 'The five senior Bishops of this Church,' 
and that the said section be further amended by add- 
ing these following words : ' Provided, That if the 
Bishop applying be one of the five, the Bishop next 
in seniority shall be counted in his place.' " 

Messages No. 16 and 17 were referred to the Com- 
mittee on Canons. 

COMMITTEE SERVICE. 

The President appointed Mr. Edmund H. Bennett, 
of Massachusetts, upon the Committee on Amend- 
ments to the Constitution, in place of Mr. R. C. L. 
Moncure, of Virginia, resigned. 

THE SECRET SESSION. 

The church having been cleared, the House pro- 
ceeded with closed doors to consider the business 
which was yesterday before the body in secret ses- 
sion, and so continued beyond the usual hour of ad- 
journment. 

ORGANIZATION OP NEW DIOCESES. 

During the session, a message (No. 18) was re- 
ceived from the House of Bishops announcing its 
concurrence in the amendment proposed by the 
House of Deputies to Section 2, of Canon 6, Title III., 
communicated in Message No. 10 of the House of 
Deputies, being relative to the calling of the Pri- 
mary Convention in a new Diocese formed by the di- 
vision of an existing Diocese. 

COMMITTEES ON CANONS. 

A message (No. 19) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the passage by that House of the following 
resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring). 
That the Committees on Canons of the two Houses 
have power to sit as a Joint Committee whenever 
either House shall commmiicate to the other a re- 
quest to that elfect." 

On motion of Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia, 
the resolution was concurred in. 

At half -past four o'clock p.m., the House adjourned 
tni to-morrow at ten o'clock A m. 



NINTH DAY. 

Friday, October 16. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
te i A.M. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psalter 
by Rev. Meyer Lewiu, d.d., of Maryland, and con- 
cluded by Rev. Samuel M. Haskins, d.d., of Long 
Island. The Litany was said by Rev. Alexander 
Burgess, d.d., of Massachusetts. The Benediction 
was pronounced by the Right Rev. Thomas Atkin- 
son, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of North Carolina. 

The PRESIDENT. The House will come to order. 

Rev. Dr. RUNCIE, of Missouri. May I have the 
privilege of presenting a memorial ? 

The PRESIDENT. I suppose if you choose to 
present it amid the confusion of clearing the House 
there can be no reason why you should not. 

Rev. Dr. RUNCIE, of Missouri. It is a memorial 
in regard to the admission of members from the 
Missionary Jurisdictions. 

The PRESIDENT. It may be presented. 

Rev. Dr. RUNCIE, of Missouri. I wish to have it 
read, if such be the pleasure of the House. 

The PRESIDENT. It cannot be read without a 
vote of the House. Under an order of the House, 



we meet with closed doors to-day. All persons not 
members of the House are requested to retire. 

The Church having been cleared, the House with 
closed doors resumed the consideration of the busi- 
ness yesterday under discussion. 

MESSAGES FROM THE BISHOPS. 

During the secret session, the following messages 
were received from the House of Bishops: 

A message (No. 20) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the following 
resolutions : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring). That the Joint Committee to confer 
with the Joint Committee of the Provincial Synod of 
Canada be continued until the next Genera,l Conven- 
tion. 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), That a deputation, consisting of 
three Bishops, three Presbj'ters, and three Laymen, 
be appointed to attend the next Provincial Synod of 
Canada, with a view to the promotion of the joint 
interests of the two Churches." 

The resolutions were concurred in. 

A message (No. 21) was received from the House 
of Bishops, announcing the passage by that House of 
the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), That the following Canon of Di- 
vorce be-Mbstituted in place of Canon 13, of Title 
III.', which is hereby repealed; and that the said 
Canon be numbered Canon 13, of Title II., viz. : 

" Canon of Divorce. 

"Sec. 1. If any persons be joined together other- 
wise than as God's Word doth allow, their marriage 
is not lawful. 

" Sec. 2. No minister of this Church shall solemn- 
ize matrimony in any case where there is a divorced 
wife or husband of either party stiU living, and 
where the divorce was obtained for some cause 
arising after marriage ; but this Canon shall not be 
held to apply to the innocent party in a divorce for 
the cause of adultery, or to parties once divorced 
seeking to be united again. 

" Sec. 3. No minister of this Church shall present 
for confirmation or administer the Holy Sacrament 
to any person divorced for any cause arising after 
marriage, and mairied to another in violation of this 
Canon, during the lifetime of such divorced wife or 
husband ; but this prohibition shall not extend to the 
innocent party where the divorce has been for the 
cause of adultery, nor to any penitent person in ex- 
tremis. 

"Sec. 4. Questions touching the facts of any case 
arising under this Canon shall be I'eferred to the 
Bishop of the Diocese or Missionary District, or, if 
there be a vacancy in the Episcopate, then to some 
Bishop designated by the Standing Committee, who 
shall thereupon make enquiry, by a Commissary or 
otherwise, and deliver his godly judgment in the 
premises. 

" Sec. 5. This Canon, so far as it affixes penalties, - 
does not apply to cases occurring before its taking 
effect, according to Canon 4, Title IV." 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE ON CANONS. 

The following reports were received during the 
secret session, and ordei-ed to be placed on the Cal- ' 
endar: 

Mr. BURGVf IN, of Pittsburgh, from the Commit- 
tee on Canons, submitted the following report: 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
the following resolution, to wit : 

" 'Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be in- 
structed to report a Canon or Rule of Order for the 
proper organi^iation of the House of Deputies, at the 
commencement of each regular session thereof, and 



115 



that the Committee consider and report upon the 
election of one or more \^ice-Presidents, to preside in 
the absence of the President from the chair ' — beg 
leave to report: 

" On the first page of the voliune containing the 
Journal of the General Convention of 1871 will be 
foimd a permanent Order of this House prescribing 
the duties of the Secretary, and incidentally giving 
directions as to the manner of organizing the House. 
The Committee recommend the enlargement of this 
Order, and a change in the Title, as follows, to wit: 

''^ First. In the Title, strike out all after the word 
* Order, ' and insert ' of the Organization of the 
House of Deputies, and prescribing the Duties of the 
Secretary. ' 

Second. Strike out the first paragraph of Sec- 
tion 1, and insert : 

" Sec. 1. At the time and place appointed for the 
meeting of the Greneral Cenvention, the Secretary, 
or in his absence the Assistant Secretary, or, in the 
absence of both, the person appointed as hereinafter 
provided by the Standing Committee of the Dio- 
cese in which the General Convention is to meet, 
shall call to order the members present of the House 
of Deputies, and record the names of those whose 
testimonials in due form shall have been presented 
to him ; which record shall be prima facie evidence 
that the persons whose names are therein recorded 
are entitled to seats in the House of Deputies. If 
there be a quorum present, by the record, 
the Secretary shall so declare, and the 
House shall proceed to organize by the 
election by ballot of a President from the 
members of the House, and of a Secretary ; and a 
majority of all the votes cast shall be necessary to 
an election. So soon as a President and Secretary 
have been elected, the House shall at once proceed to 
the election of a Vice-President, by ballot, and a 
majority of all the votes cast shall be necessary to 
an election. The Vice-President on being elected 
may take his seat by the President, to aid him in the 
discharge of his duties ; and he shall preside in the 
absence of the President from the chair. But the 
President shall a.ppoint all committees, unless the 
House shall other^vise order. Before proceeding to 
other business, a committee shall be appointed to 
wait upon the House of Bishops, and inform them of 
the organization of the House of Deputies, and its 
readiness to proceed to business. 

"■Third. After the word 'Secretary,' in the 
seventh line of the second paragraph of Section 1, 
insert 'and the Secretary and Assistant Secretary 
shall continue in oflice until the organization of the 
next Convention, and until their successors be chosen. ' 

Fourth. Add to Section 2 : 'He shall also for- 
ward a duplicate copy of such testimonials to the 
Standing Committee of the Diocese in which the 
next General Convention is to meet. ' 

" The Committee further recommend the adoption 
of the following resolution : 

" 'Resolved, That this order, so far as applies to 
the election of a Vice-President, be effectual from 
the date of this resolution ; and that the House pro- 
ceed forthwith to the election of a Vice-President.' 
"By order of the Committee, 

^' WM. COOPER MEAD, Chairman. 

"October 16, 1874." 

Order (as proposed to be amended) of the Organi- 
zation of the House of Deputies, and prescrib- 
ing the Duties of the Secretary. (Adopted Octo- 
ber 15, 1841 ; amended October 2, 1844, October 
9, 1874, and October — , 1874.) 

Section 1. At the time and place appointed for 
the meeting of the General Convention, the Secre- 
tary, or, in his absence, the Assistant Secretary, or, 
in the absence of both, the person appointed as here- 
inafter provided by the Standing Committee of the 



Diocese in which the General Convention is to meet, 
shall call to order the members present of 
the House of Deputies, and record the 
names of those whose testimonials in due form 
shall have been presented to him, which record 
shall be prima facie evidence that the 
persons whose names are therein recorded are enti- 
tled to seats in the House of Deputies. If there be a 
quoram present, by the record the Secretary shall 
so declare, and the House shall proceed to organize 
by the election by ballot of a President from the 
members of the House, and of a Secretary; and a ma- 
jority of all the votes cast shall be necessary to an elec- 
tion. So soon as the President and Secretary have 
been elected the House shall at once proceed to the 
election of a Vice-President, by ballot; and a major- 
ity of all the votes cast shall be necessary to an elec- 
tion. The Vice-President on being elected may take 
his seat bv the President, to aid him in the discharge 
of his duties ; and he shall preside in the absence of 
the President from the chair. But the President 
shall appoint all committees, unless the House shall 
otherwise order. Before proceeding to other busi- 
ness a committee shall be appointed to wait upon 
the House of Bishops, and inform them of the organ- 
ization of the House of Deputies and its readiness to 
proceed to business. 

The Secretary shaH keep full minutes of the pro- 
ceedings of the House ; transcribe them with all re- 
ports into a book provided for that purpose; preserve 
the Journal and Records of the House; deliver them 
to his successor, and perform such other duties as 
may be directed or assigned to him by the House. 
He may, with the approbation of the House, appoint 
an Assistant .Secretary, and the Secretary and As- 
sistant Secretary shall continue in ofiice until the or- 
ganization of the next Convention, and until their 
successors be chosen. If, during the recess of the 
General Convention, a vacancy should occur in the 
office of Secretary, the duties thereof shall devolve 
upon the Assistant Secretary, if there be one; if not, 
or if the Assistant Secretary shall die or resign, a 
Secretary shaU be appointed by the Standing Com- 
mittee of the Diocese in which the next General 
Convention is to meet. 

Sec. 2. In order to aid the Secretary in preparing 
the list specified in the preceding section, it shall be 
the duty of the Secretary of the Convention of every 
Diocese to forward to him as soon as may be prac- 
ticable a copy of the Journal of the Diocesan Con- 
vention, together with a certified copy of the testi- 
monials of members aforesaid. He shall also 
forward a duplicate copy of such testimonials to the 
Standing Committee of the Diocese in which the 
next General Convention is to meet. 

Sec. 3. The Secretary of the House of Deputies 
and the Treasurer of the Convention, although not 
returned as Deputies to the Convention, shall be en- 
titled to seats upon the floor of the House, and, with 
the approval of the President, to speak on the sub- 
jects of their respective offices. 

Mr. SHEFFE Y, of Virginia, from the Committee 
on Canons, submitted the following report: 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom were re- 
ferred Message No. 8 from the House of Bishops, and 
four resolutions, all relating to the correction of 
supposed omissions or errors in the last edition of 
the Digest of the Canons, respectfully report that 
they have considered the same, and recommend the 
adoption of the following resolutions ; 

" 1. Resolved, That this House concurs with the 
House of Bishops in the adoption of the resolution 
communicated to this House in Message No. 8, relat- 
ing to Canons 8 and 9 of Title I. of the Digest of 
1868. 

" 2. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the numbers 5 and 7, in Subsection 4, of Section 
8, of Canon 13, of Title I., be changed to 6 and 8 re- 



116 



spectively, so that the said Subsection may read as 
follows: 

"4. Any Bishop or Bishops elected and conse- 
crated under this section, or any Foreign Missionary 
Bishop heretofore consecrated, or any Bishop to 
whom the exercise of Episcopal powers and func- 
tions in a foreign Church or congregation shall have 
been assigned by the presiding Bishop, may ordain 
as deacons or presbyters, to oificiate within the lim- 
its of their respective missions, or in such foreign 
Church or congrega,tion, any persons, of the age re- 
quired by the Canons of this Church, who shall ex- 
hibit to him or them the testimonials required by 
Canons 6 and 8 of this Title, signed by not less than 
two of the ordained missionaries of this Church who 
may be subject to his or their charge, or by two 
Presbyters of this Church, in good standing, con- 
nected with such foreign Church or congregation. 

" Provided, nevertheless, that if there be only one 
ordained missionary attached to the mission, or only 
one Presbyter of this Church connected with such 
foreign Church or congrega,tion, and capable of act- 
ing at the time, the signature of a Presbyter in good 
standing under the jurisdiction of any Bishop in 
communion with this Church may be admitted to 
supply the deficiency. 

"In relation to the enquiry whether a subsection re- 
lating to the appointment of Lay Readers by the 
Bishop should not be added to Section 2, of Canon 
9, of Title I., the Committee report as follows: From 
an examination of the printed Journals it would 
seem that such addition would be proper, the same 
having been adopted in this House and not appearing 
to have been stricken out by the House of Bishops. 
But upon examination of the enrolled copy of the 
Canon, as sent to the House of Bishops and preserved 
among its papers, it appears that the subsection in 
question was, through an error of the Clerk of this 
House, appended to the preceding question (that is, 
Section 2 of the Canon as it then stood), the whole of 
which section was struck out by the House of 
Bishops, which, of course, included said subsection. 
The Committee therefore recommend the adoption 
of the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Comm ittee on Canons be dis- 
charged from the consideration of the subject. 

"In relation to the proposed amendment to Section 
1, of Canon 10, of Title II., by changing the word 
' or, ' in the fourth line, to ' and, ' the Commitiee 
report that they are of the opinion that it is inex- 
pedient, and recommend the adoption of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
amendment to Section 1, of Canon 10, of Title II. 

"The Committee have also considered the subject 
of the proposed repeal of Section 6, of Canon 13, of 
Title I., and are of the opinion that such repeal 
would be inexpedient. They therefore recommend 
the adoption of the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be dis- 
charged from the consideration of the proposed re- 
peal of Section 6, of Canon 13, of Title I. 
" By order of the Committee. 

" WILLIAM COOPER MEAD, 
"Chairman." 

SECRET SESSION. 

The secret session of the House lasted till four 
o'clock, when the House adjourned till ten o'clock 
to-morrow. 

■ 

TENTH DAY. 

Saturday, October 17. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
ten A.M. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psalter 



by Rev. WiUiam C. Crane, d.d., of Mississippi. The 
Lessons were read by Rev. David B. Knickerbacker, 
D.D., of Minnesota. The Creed and Prayers were 
said by Rev. John S. Kidney, d.d., of Minnesota. 
The Benediction was pronounced by the Right Rev. 
William Crosweil Doane, d.d.. Bishop of Albany. 

The Church having been cleared, the House re- 
sumed, with closed doors, the consideration of the 
matter under discussion yesterday. 

FAMILIES OF DECEASED CLERaYMEN. 

During the secret session a message (No. 22) was 
received from the House of Bishops announcing the 
passage by that House of the foUowing resolutions : 

"Resolved, That the Triennial Report of the Trus- 
tees of the Fund for the Relief of the Widows and Or- 
phans of Deceased Clergymen, etc. , be communicated 
to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 

"Resolved, That this House has heard with great 
satisfaction the Ti'iemiial Report of the Trustees of 
the Fund for the Relief of the Widows and Orphans 
of Deceased Clergymen, etc., and (the House of 
Clerical and Lay Deputies concurring) it is recom- 
mended to the Trustees to ascertain, by correspond- 
ence or otherwise, how many disabled clergymen of 
this Church are now destitute, and what provision 
has been made for destitute widows and orphans; 
and to adopt such other measures as in their judg- 
ment are wise to increase the fund, to accomplish 
more effectually the beneficent purposes for which 
they are organized, and to enliven the interest of the 
Church in the important subject committed to them. " 

On motion of Mr. OTIS, of Illinois, it was 

"Resolv^ed, That this House concurs in the recom- 
mendation communicated in the Message No. 22 
from the House of Bishops transmitting the Trien- 
nial Report of the Trustees of the Fund for the Re- 
lief of the Wid ows and Orphans of Deceased Clergy- 
men and of Infirm and Disabled Clergymen." 

While the doors were closed the following business 
of a public character was transacted : 

DIVISION OF DIOCESE OF OHIO. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia, from the 
Committee on the Admission of New Dioceses, submit- 
ted the following report, which was adopted : 

"The Committee on the Admission of New Dio- 
ceses, to whom was referred the memorial from the 
Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the Diocese of Ohio, asking the consent of the Gen- 
eral Convention to the creation of a new Diocese 
within the limits of the present Diocese of Ohio, re- 
spectfully report: 

"That having examined the documents committed 
to them, and found them to be correct, they recom- 
mend the adoption of the foUowing preamble and 
resolution : 

" Whereas, A request has been presented to the 
House of Deputies from the Diocese of Ohio that a 
new Diocese be erected in the present Diocese of 
Ohio, to be composed of that portion of the present 
Diocese of Ohio lying south of a line running along 
the south line of Mercer, Shelby, Logan, Union, 
Marion, Morrow, Knox, Coshocton, Tuscarora, 
Harrison, and Jefferson counties ; and, whereas, 
it appears, by official docmnents laid before this 
House, that the Bishop of Ohio has consented to the 
erection of the said Diocese, and that all the require- 
ments of the fifth article of the Constitution and 
of the Canons are fulfilled ; therefore be it 

"Resolved, That this House do concur in the ac- 
tion commimicated to it in Message No. 11, from 
the House of Bishops, consenting to and ratifying 
the formation of the proposed new Diocese, and do 
hereby recognize the union with the General Con- 
vention of the new Diocese, so soon as it shall have 
been organized and named in Primary Convention, 
in compliance with Section 4, Canon 6, Title III." 



117 



DIVISION OF DIOCESE OF MICHIGAN. 

Rev. Mr. HAI\ CKSL, of Virginia, from the Com- 
mittee ou the Admission of New Dioceses, submitted 
the following- report, which was adoptod : 

"The Committee on the Admission of New 
Dioceses, to whom wds referred the memorial from 
the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the Diocese of Michigan, aslcing the consent of 
tlie General Convention to the creation of a, new 
Diocese within the limits of the present Diocese of 
Michigan, respectfully report : 

" That having exaniined the documents committed 
to them, and foimd them to be correct, they recom- 
mend the adoption of the following preamble and 
resolution : 

"Whereas, A request has been presented to the 
House of Deputies from the Diocese of Michigan, 
that a new Diocese be erected in the present Diocese 
of Michigan, to be composed of the Counties of 
Branch, St. Joseph, Cass, Berrien, VanBuren, Kala- 
mazoo, Calhoun, Eaton, Barry, Otfcs,wa, Kent, 
Allegan, Ionia, Montcalm, Muskegon, Oceana, 
Newaygo, Meconta, Isabella, Clare, Osceola, Lake, 
Mason, Manistee, Wexford, Missaukee, Kascaskia, 
Grand, Traverse, Benzie, Leelenaw, Antrim, Char- 
tevoise, and Emmett ; and whereas it appears by 
official documents laid before this House that the 
Bishop of Michigan has consented to the erection of 
said Diocese, and tha'Z aU the requirements of the 
fifth article of the Constitution and of the Canons 
are fulfilled, therefore be it 

"Resolved, That the House do concur in the ac- 
tion communicated to it in Message No. 10, from 
the House of Bishops, consenting to and ratifying 
the formation of the proposed new Diocese, and do 
hereby recognize the union with the General Con- 
vention of the new Diocese, so soon as it shall have 
been organized and named in Primary Convention, 
in compliance with Canon 6, Section 4, Title III." 

LEAVES OF ABSENCE. 

The Committee on Elections reported that they 
had granted leaves of absence to the following per- 
sons: 

Rev. Charles A. Seymour, of Iowa, for to-day. 

Rev. Julian Metcalf, of Nebraska, until Tuesday 
morning, October 20. 

Mr. John L. Farweil, of New Hampshire, for a 
few days. 

Rev. Daniel Goodwin, of Rhode Island, imtil 
Tuesday morning, October 20. 
The report was adopted. 

WITHDAWAL OF PAPERS. 

On motion of Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia, 
it was 

" Ordered, That the delegation of Wisconsin have 
leave to withdi-aw the papers asking for a division 
of that Diocese, in order to perfect them." 

REPORT OF BOARD OF MISSIONS. 

The Secretary presented the report of the Board 
of Missions and accompanying documents, wliich, 
on moti.on of Eev. Dr. Williams, of Georgia, were 
referred to the Committee on Missions. 

SECRET SESSION ON MONDAY. 

On motion of Rev. Dr. BRECK, of Central Penn- 
sylvania, it was 

' ' Ordered, That the House resume its secret ses- 
sion on Monday next at 12 o'clock. " 

TESTIMONIAL OF BISHOP WELLES. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. I move that 
immediately after the recess the Convention pro- 
ceed to sign the testimonials of the Bishop-elect of 
Wisconsin, in open session. 

The motion was agreed to. 



The Convention took a recess for half an hour, 
and reassembled at two o'clock p.m. hi open session. 

The testimonial of Rev. EDWARD R. WELLES, 
D.D., Bishop-elect of Wisconsin, havmg been sig-ned 
by a constitutional majority of the members of the 
House present, on motion of Rev. Dr. iiliams, of 
Georgia, it was 

"Ordered, That the Secretary be instructed to 
transmit the said t( stimoniai to the House of Bish- 
ops, the said testimonial having been signed by a 
constitutional majority, and in pursuance of an or- 
der of this House." 

CHURCH MUSIC. 

A message (No. 23) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption, by that House, of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), That the following Canon be adopt- 
ed : 

"OF CHURCH MUSIC. 

"It shall be the duty of every minister of this 
Church, with such assistance as he can obtain from 
persons skilled in music, to give order concerning the 
tunes to be sung at any time in his Church; and, es- 
pecially, it shall be his duty to suppress aU light and 

: unseemly music, and all indecency and irreverence 

i in the performance, by which vain and ungodly per- 
sons profane the sei-vice of the sanctuary. 

' 'And, further, that this Canon be numbered Canon 

i 21^ of Title I., and that the present Canon be num- 
bered Canon 22. 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 

I ties concurring). That this Canon be printed m place 
of the resolution on the sam.e subject heretofore pre- 
fixed to the Psahns m Metre and the Hymnal." 

REDUCTION OF PRINTED JOURNAL. 

A message (No. 24) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption, by that House, of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), That a Joint Committee be appoint- 
ed to consider and report what measures are neces- 
sary to reduce the size and expense of the limited 
journal, and that the Committee on the part of this 
House consist of the Bishops of Central Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, and Massachusetts." 

NEW YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the 
following invitation : 

" The members of the House of Bishops and of the 
House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Conven- 
tion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the uni- 
ted States, now in session in this city, are respectful- 
ly invited to visit, at any time most agreeable to 
themselves, the Hall, Library, Museum of Antiqui- 
ties, and Gallerv of Art of the New York Historical 
Society, situated in Second Avenue, on the comer of 
Eleventh Street, and opposite St. Mark's Church. 
The library and collections of the Society are open 
every day (Sunday excepted) from 9 o'clock a.m. 
until 6 o'clock P.M. 

' ' The simple announcement, at the door of the Hall, 
that the person presenting himself is a member of 
the Convention, will assure admittance. 

" FREDERIC DE PEYSTER, 
" President. 

"Andrew Warner, 

" Recording Secretary. 
" October 17th, 1874." 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. 

The SECRETARY (Rev. WiUiam Stevens Perry 
D.D,, of Western New York). Mr. President, may I 
make a personal statement ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. 



118 



The SECRETARY. My attention has been called 
to,^an article in the l^ew Yoi± Times which I -only 
wish to speak of in reference to a certain portion 
thereof. The reporter, or author of the article, 
states that several Deputies condemned my "over- 
oificiousness " in making the amiouncement in the 
limch-room the other day cautioning Deputies that 
tliey were in the presence of reporters. I wish sim- 
ply to state that I gave that caution not for my own 
personal wish but at the request of the Lay Depu- 
ties of New York, who are charged with the enforce- 
ment of the law which this House has passed requii'- 
ing secrecy in the matter before it. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. It was not con- 
demnation, but approbation. 

The SECRETARY. I only refer to the article be- 
cause that statement was made. I hope I am under- 
stood. I do not care at all about the criticism of the 
New York Times, but only as to the condenmation 
of my course on the part of the Deputies. 

PROPOSED REPEAL OF RULE ON SECRECY. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I give notice that on 
Monday I will offer a resolution to revoke Rule No. 
17, which provides that, "whenever the election or 
confii-mation of a Bishop is under consideration, the 
House shall sit with closed doors. " 

The PRESIDENT. Do you propose to revoke the 
rule entirely, or only for the present session ? 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. For this present ses- 
sion. Under the rules, I have to give notice a day 
in advance, and this is the notice. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I move that 
the House do now adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to and (at three o'clock P. 
M.) the House adjourned tiU Monday at ten o'clock 
A.M. 



ELEVENTH DAY. 

Monday, October 19. 
The Convention assembled at St. John's Chapel at 
ten A.M. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psal- 
ter by Rev. S. M. Bird, of Texas. The Lessons 
were read by Rev. Wilham G-. Farrington, d.d., of 
New Jersey. The Creed and Prayers were said by 
Rev. Walter R. Richardson, of Texas. The Bene- 
diction was pronounced by the Rt. Rev. Henry 
Champhn Lay, d.d., ll.d., Bishop of Easton. 

The minute's of the open session of Saturday last 
were read and approved. 

CANON OF CHURCH MUSIC. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I offer the 
following resolution: 

" Resolved, That Message No. 22, from the House 
of Bishops, proposing the enactment of a Canon ' Of 
Church Music, ' be taken from the Calendar and re- 
ferred to the Committee on Canons." 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Before that is 
taken from the Calendar, I think it is exceedingly 
important that the House should determine when it 
will commence night sessions. I would like, with I 
the permission of the gentleman from Georgia, to 
be allowed merely to make a motion that, if our ses- 
sions continue over imtil next week, we then com- 
mence holding night sittings. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. This is mere- 
ly a motion of reference to the Committee on Can- 
ons, not for any action. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Very well. 

The PRESIDE!^ T. The question is on the motion 
to refer the message to the Committee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

NIGHT SESSIONS AND HOURS OF SITTING. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that, if 



the House continue its sessions next week, we have 
sessions morning and night, and that the Board of 
Missions be notified thereof. It is exceedmgly im- 
portant, as that is the Missionary Council of our 
Church, that it should have time to perfect its de- 
liberations ; and, if vre give io this notice to-day, it 
can certainly finish this week; and I do think those 
members who, like myself, are here at a very great 
inconvenience, will insist upon having night sessions 
next week. My motion, then, is, that next week we 
hold sessions at night, and that the Board of Mis- 
sions be notified thereof at once. 

Rev. Mr. BARBER, of Easton. I would suggest, 
in lieu of that motion, the following resolution, 
which I offer at the request of many members of the 
House : 

"Resolved, That daring the present week the 
House will hold evening sessions from 7 :30 to 10 
o'clock P.M." 

This resolution is offered, Mr. President, in view 
of the absolute necessity, considering the pressure 
and urgency of business,*^that this step be taken; and 
the sooner we commence our night sessions the more 
rapid shall v/ e be in the despatch of our business. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I wish to offer 
the following amendment to that: Strike out all 
after the word " Resolved " and insert: 

" That after to-day this House will sit in open ses- 
sion for the transaction of the general business of 
the Convention, daily, from 10 o'clock a.m. to 4 
o'clock P.M., and that for the discussion of the ques- 
tion of consenting to the consecration of the Bishop- 
elect of Illinois, and for that only, this House will sit 
every night from 7 o'clock until 10 o'clock, unless 
sooner adjourned, beginning with to-night and con- 
tinuing until the discussion is ended ; and that at 12 
o'clock meridian of the day next following the end 
of the discussion, this House will proceed to vote in 
open session on the question of consenting to the 
consecration of the said Bishop-elect of Ilhnois." 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. That comprises 
two subjects entirely unlike. If the gentleman 
presses it, I shall have to claim my right to insist 
upon a division of the question. It first provides 
v/hen we shall have our night sessions, and next, 
what for. The first resolution that was offered was, 
that if this House continues in session next week it 
then hold sessions at night. The amendment, as I 
understood it, is that we commence at once holding 
night sessions. That will cut off the Board of Mis- 
sions from their Vv^ork, and we might as well resolve 
ourselves into professors of anatomy and suppose that 
the Church will live hy making skeletons alone as to 
give up the Board of Missions. That subject can 
come up afterwards with very great propriety and 
be discussed, but the amendment will involve the 
subject now, and if the gentleman presses it I still 
ask for a division of the question. 

Rev. Mr. BARBER, of Easton. I offered my reso- 
lution at the suggestion of many Deputies, especial- 
ly lay members of the Convention. It provides, 
first, as to the question which now comes properly 
before us, whether we shall have evening sessions or 
not. Then, as to the business to occupy us in the 
evening sessions, that is a secondary consideration. 
It seems to me that the first question before us 
is whether, in the pressure of business now before 
the House, it is not obvious to every one that we 
ought to sit at night; and I apprehend that every 
member of the House will at once perceive that such 
a step is necessary, and necessary at once in order 
that our session may not be um'easonably protract- 
ed. Those who have attended the Conventions be- 
fore are aware that, at the beginning of the third 
week, the members commence to fall off, the lay 
members especially, and the House must now trans- 
act the business that requires its attention. I sub- 
mit, therefore, that the question is whether we shall 



119 



have any evening sessions or not. Subsequently we 
may consider the special order for those sessions. 

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky. I hope the res- 
olution of the Deputy from Pennsylvania will not 
be adopted. The business of the Board of Missions 
is quite as important as anything that can come 
before this body for legislation. "Wliile that 
business is going "on and progressing regularly, 
it will take all the time that can be given to the 
Board during the present week to brmg it into pro- 
per order and shape. It will enlarge the operations 
of the Board, give greater interest, spread proper 
reports and proper intelligence of the operations of 
the Board of Missions for the entire Chm'ch. That 
is the work that is to be done. The tme remedy is 
to limit speeches to fifteen minutes, and when that 
subject comes up I hope the speeches will be limited. 
You will not then need any night sessions. There 
have been ten days of this session, this is the elev- 
enth day, I believe, and the session will probably 
not last longer than twenty da^rs. I think that we 
must all see the necessity of saving time here on 
this floor, and not subtracting it from the necessary 
business of the Board of Missions. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I observed 
in the General Convention in Baltimore, as I ob- 
serve here already, which I am very sorry to ob- 
serve, a degree of restiveness under the idea of 
what might be called a prolonged session, that is, a 
few days longer than the sessions have generally 
been, and I hear gentlemen, such as my good friend 
from the Diocese of Pennsylvania, say that. I do 
not think that anybody ought to feel or to say that 
he is here under circumstances of great inconven- 
ience. We are sent here once in three yeai^s for the 
pui-pose of discharging a great duty to the Church. 
No person has a right to accept that position imless 
he has duly intended in his own mind and heart to 
discharge it, and when he comes here he should not 
attempt to curtail the time for proper discussion and 
the consideration of such measures of importance 
as are brought before us, so as to make that consid- 
eration scanty. 

I therefore deprecate most heartily the idea of 
persons pleading that they have got very important 
engagements elsewhere, and that therefore this ses- 
sion should be made very short. I claim that, nest 
to a man's personal devotion to his God, there is no 
more important engagement he can have in this 
world than sitting in this body, and havhig the honor 
and privilege, as well as the responsible duty, of as- 
sisting in the legislation of this Church, and I 
therefore claim that, if our sessions, instead of being 
three weeks, are six weelts, it is not too much to ask 
of those who are sent here from the different Dio- 
ceses that they consecrate themselves with single 
heartiness and' willingness, cheerfully and without 
making continued excuses and extenuations, to 
this work, and claiming that they ought to be at 
home instead of here; but, on the contrary, they 
shoidd discharge that duty. I beg, therefore, to 
submit to my fellow-members that the question of 
inconvenience ought not to be pleaded in this House. 
I am very free to say, if I may be pardoned a per- 
sonal reference, that I would rather attend a Gene- 
ral Convention in San Francisco, than, living in 
Brooklj-n, attend a Convention in New York. The 
personal inconvenience 1 can plead, having to take 
charge of my parish and a thousa,nd other things ap- 
pertaining to it, owing to my proximate residence, 
in comiection v^ith my duties here, and it makes it 
exceedingly inconvenient; but I do not dream of 
thinking that I mrist estimate that inconvenience ui 
the discharge of my duty here. I kne w it at the 
time I was elected, and I could have declined at the 
time, if I chose, but I did choose to in cm' the incon- 
venience, and therefore accepted the duty which 
my Diocese imposed upon me, " 



I proposed last week that we should have night 
sessions (not as a formal motion) in the discussion of 
the case of Dr. Seymour, so that the business of the 
Convention could go on regularly during the day in 
open session, and we cou].d sit in the evening for this 
discussion. I did not press the motion. I merely 
rose to put it to the House, but there were cries of 
"no, no," and I concluded there was strong opposi- 
tion to it. and therefore did not press it. 

I think myself, from the gentlemen who have 
spoken on this floor, that it is miwise at this time. If 
we had begun last week, it would have been very 
weU, because then business was scarcely inaugurated. 
Now, all that is prehminary has been 'gone through 
with, and to-night the Board of Missions begins to 
sit for tlie discharge of business that is important 
and imperative, and I do not think that this House 
ought, by a vote, make it the duty of those members 
who are also members of the Board of Missions to re- 
main away from the Board to attend the sessions of 
this body. The Board of Missions has fixed its hour 
of sitting wiih reference to there being no evening 
sessions of the Convention, and their an^angements 
foi- busiuess are laid out, their programme comple- 
ted, for the whole week. I trust, theref oi-e, that the 
House will not b'sten to the idea now, as I think it 
should have done last week. At this point, however, 
I am utterly opposed to night sessions now, and I 
think that in voting upon the resolution and amend- 
ment before us, the membei-s will candidly weigh the 
words I have submitted with reference to a probable 
prolongation of this session particularly, as so many 
days of regular business have ah-eady been occupied 
upon the discussion of the matter of the consecration 
of Dr. Seyinom\ 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I suggest to the gen- 
tleman from East on that his amendment is altogeth- 
er out of order. It raises two distinct propositions. 
One is that we sit in open session while the question 
of the consecration of the Bishop-elect is before the 
House, and the other is for evening sessions. One of 
these propositions is ui the nature of a rule, and re- 
quii'es a two-thirds majority. The other proposition 
contemplates merely the continuance of the session 
in the evening, and" does not require a two-thirds 
majority. Therefore, I thuik there can be no doubt 
the Chair wiU rule the amendment out of order. 

As to the night sessions, 1 thhik it is proper, as the 
Board of Missions is a body not hi the Convention, 
that it shoidd have at least three days' notice of the 
pm-pose of this House to have night sessions, be- 
ca^iLse it has hitherto transacted its busiuess on the 
idea that the night woidd be for it, and many mem- 
bers of this body are members of that Board ; and 
while we are orily here for our work and contiuued 
work, I do not think it would be just and proper 
that the night sessions shoiild be held sooner than 
Vrednesday, so as to give the Board of Missions at 
least t\\o nights. 

ReA'. Mr. BARBER, of Easton. I am willing to 
limit my resolution so as to read that " on and after 
\f ednesday next this House wUl hold night ses- 
sions." 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I will then ask the 
Chair to iiile the amendment of the gentleman from 
Easton (Mr. Stearns) out of order. I ask the gentle- 
man to withdraw the amendment in order to aUow 
a direct vote on the question of night sessions. In 
addition to that. I woidd remark that the gentleman 
from Maryland iMr. Blair) gave notice on Saturday 
that he would offer a proposition to repeal the 
seventeenth rule, which requires a secret session for 
assentuig to the consecration of Bishops ; and for 
that one reason I would suggest to the gentleman 
to withdraw his motion which contemplates the rais- 
ing of that question. 

Rev. Dr. STEAkNS, of Easton. If I am out of 
order I am willing to withdraw my amendment on 



120 



the question of secret sessions. It only provided 

that when we take the vote it shall be taken in open 
session ; and in regard to the discussion, it does not 
touch upon that at all. My object was to provide, 
just as the House of Representatives in Congress 
provides, for those who want to talk upon a certain 
subject after the evidence is all in, and when we 
have already made up our minds, and can see no 
new evidence for some two or three days back, that 
they may have the opportunity to discuss this ques- 
tion at night, and say what they please to say, and 
yet the business of tnis House go on. It does seem 
to me, if we adopt this amendment of mine, we 
can go on with the regular business of the House 
during the day session, and after to-day the Con- 
vention will meet simply for the purpose of that 
discussion, and, I suppose, members of the Board of 
Missions, most of them, do not care about it ; they 
have made up their minds so far as the evidence is 
already in, and there seems no likelihood of new 
evidence coming in. That is the sole object of my 
amendment. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I move to lay 
the amendment on the table. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. What was the 
original motion ? 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. To commence 
night sessions next week. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. And to give no- 
tice to the Board of Missions immediately, so that 
they may prepare themselves. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. The third 
amendment was the amendment of the gentleman 
from Easton (Rev. Dr. Stearns), to have the discus- 
sion on the consecration of the Bishop-elect of Illi- 
nois at night. My motion is to lay that on the 
table. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I call for the 
reading of that resolution, so that we may under- 
stand what it is. 

The SECRETARY. Rev. Dr. Stearns, of Easton, 
moves to strike oub all after the word " Resolved," 
and insert as follows: 

" That after to-day this House will sit in open ses- 
sion for the transaction of the general business of 
the Convention, daily from ten o'clock a.m. to four 
o'clock P.M., and thab for the discussion of the con- 
senting to the consecration of the Bishop-elect of 
Illinois, and for that only, this House will sit every 
night from seven o'clock till ten, unless sooner ad- 
journed, beginning with to-night, and continuing 
till the discussion is ended, and that at twelve 
o'clock meridian, on the day next following the 
end of the discussion, this House will proceed to 
vote in open session on the question of consenting 
to the consecration of the said Bishop-elect of Illi- 
nois. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on laying the 
amendment on the table. 
The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs on 
the amendment of the gentleman from Easton (Rev. 
Mr. Barber). 

Rev. Mr. BARBER, of Easton. I accept the 
suggestion of my friend from \^irginia, that aroer 
Wednesday next we hold evening sessions, so that 
it shaU read : 

" Resolved, That after Wednesday next the House 
shall hold evening sessions from 7:30 to 10 p.m." 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. That is for general busi- 
ness ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, for all busuaess. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I have not had the 
fortime to hear what has been said on this matter ; 
but I wish to say a word to the House. The Board 
of Missions has a very important work to do in this 
Church. It does nearly ail the work for the most of 
the Territory of the Church on this continent, and it 



does a very large share of work in every Diocese. 
There is scarcely a Diocese that does not have help 
from the Board of Missions. Now, vv^hat we shall do 
here depends very much on v/hat the Board of Mis- 
sions does in its sessions. All the outlying Dioceses 
of the Church can send their Deputies to this Con- 
vention as Deputies to that Board of Missions. If 
you so arrange it that this House shall sit when that 
Board is sitting, you either take the Deputies from 
I this House or you take them from that. I do not be- 
lieve that it is for the interest of the Church that 
either of these great bodies shall be deprived of their 
efficient men. 1 hope, at any rate, for this reason, 
that the Board of Missions will be allowed to go on 
at night, and that our House will only hold day ses- 
sions. I am not willing to lose my place on the floor 
of the Board of Missions. Yf e are greatly interested 
in its work. I am not willing to lose my 
place on this floor. We are greatly interested 
in the work here, and my Diocese has the right to my 
vote in each place. What is true in my case is true 
in the case of every outlying, far-away Diocese 
which has jurisdiction in the Church. Therefore I 
hope we shall refuse to commence our evening ses- 
sions in this House on Thursday next. It is a very 
short time to give the Board of Missions, only this 
week, but let them have this week in full. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend- 
ment of the gentleman from Easton (Rev. Mr. Bar- 
ber), to hold night sessions after W ednesday. 

The amendment was not agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs on 
the motion of Mr. Welsh, of Pennsylvania, to com- 
mence night sessions next week, provided the House 
remains in session so long, and to give notice of that 
resolution to the Board of Missions. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I shall vote for that 
resolution, but I would prefer that the mover would 
change it so that our sessions, during the day, this 
week, shall extend to 5 o'clock. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I am perfectly 
willing to make that motion afterwards. 

Mr. W HITTLE, of Georgia. We have a lunch in 
this building, and come here to do business. Now, 
the gentleman across the way (Rev. Dr. Schenck) 
talks about sitting here six weeks. 

The PRESIDENT. Let that come up aftei-wards. 
The question now is on the motion of the Deputy 
from Pennsylvania to hold night sessions next week, 
and that notice of the fact be given to the Board of 
Missions at once. 

The motion was agreed to, 

Mr. WEl<SH, of Pennsylvania, I move that the 
day sessions hereafter, during this week, be from 
nine and one-haK in the morning till five in the after- 
noon. If gentlemen want to work they can do it. I 
know the objection is on account of the committees, 
but the committees can sit at night as well as the 
Board of Missions. We are at work till half -past 
ten, and they can work too. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Except Satur- 
day. 

Mr. VfELSH, of Pennsylvania. Yes, sir, 
Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I do not thinli 
the Deputy from Pennsylvania ought to exclude 
from the Board of Missions men who are upon the 
committees. I think that the members who are 
willing to meet at nme o'clock on committees ought 
a.t least to have the privilege of going to the Board 
of Missions at night, with other members of that 
Board. I therefore hope the gentleman will modify 
his motion. 

Ml". WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I am willing to 
modify my motion, and to make the daily sessions 
from ten to five o'clock. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
as modified to ijrovide that the sessions of this House 
be from ten till five o'clock. 



121 



The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. That includes to- 
day and excepts Saturday ? 
The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. 

SECRET SESSIONS. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I ask now that the [ 
House talce up and consider the resolution which I ! 
gave notice of on Satui day to abolish the seventeenth : 
rule imposing secrecy upon our sessions in relation { 
to assenting to the consecration of Bishops. I do 
not think this will cause any debate. I do not pro- 
pose to say anything, and i do not think it necessary 
^to say anything to the House on this subject. If gen- 
tlemen are not convinced by the experience we have 
had of the inconvenience of holdmg these sessions in 
secret, nothing I can say can change their opinion, 
and therefore I do not propose to debate the ques- 
tion unless somebody else shall do so. i ask for the 
question on my resolution. 

The PRESIDENT. I hope the question may be 
put at once. It is of no use to debate it. Every 
man has made up his mind. The Secretary wiU 
please read the resolution. 

The SECRETARY. Mr. Blair, of Maryland, 
moves the striking out of the rule of order number 
17. 

The question being put, a division was called for, 
which resulted, ayes 92, noes 95. So the motion was 
not agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I desire to sub- 
mit a report from the Committee on Amendments 
to the Constitution. 

Rev. Dr. FLLTON, of Alabama. Mr. Presi- 
dent — 

The PRESIDENT. A Deputy is on the floor. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise to a ques- 
tion with respect to the vote just taken. I desire 
to know whether every member v/as requii-ed to 
vote. 

The PRESIDENT. It is impossible for the Chair 
to answer the question. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The rule of 
order provides that the members of the Convention 
shaU vote. 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir ; and if you Imew of 
any body who was not voting, it was your duty to 
call the attention of the House to the fact then. The 
vote has now been announced, and is final. 

HOUSE OF DEPUTIES. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island, from the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution, sub- 
mitted the following: 

" The Committee on Amendments to the Consti- 
tution, to whom was referred the resolution of the 
Rev. Dr. Burr, of Ohio, as to the expediency of pro- 
posing an amendment to the Constitution reducing 
the ninnber of Clerical and Lay Deputies from each 
Diocese, and the resolution of the Rev. Dr. Beardsley, 
of Connecticut, as to the expediency of rearrang- 
ing the same on a new basis of representation, re- 
spectfully report that such amendments, in their 
opinion, would bo mexpedient at the present time, 
and ask to be discharged from the further consid- 
eration of the subject. 

CHARLES H. HALL, Chairman, etc. 

BENJ. A. ROGERS, 

GEO. P. COMSTOCK, 

E. T. WILDER, 

J. W. STEVENSON, 

EDWARD McCRADY, 

G. W. RACE, 

T. U. DUDLEY, Jr." 

BISHOPS OFFICIATING- IN OTHER DIOCESES. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I beg leave, as 
I am up, to offer the following resolution, to be re- 



ferred to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the alteration of Article IV. of the Constitu- 
tion, proposed in the last General Convention, and 
made known to the several Diocesan Conventions, 
and printed on pages 160, 341, and 357 of the Jour- 
nal of the last Genei-al Convention, be, and the 
same is hereby, finally agreed to and ratified as 
provided in Article IX. of the Constitution. " 

The amendment is in regard to a Diocese with a 
Bishop, as weU as a Diocese without a Bishop, ask- 
ing help from a neighboring Bishop. I think there 
need be no discussion on the merits, as it will come 
up on the resolution when brought back from the 
Committee. The amendment was passed hj the 
last General Convention, and has been sent down to 
the Dioceses, and simply awaits ratification. My 
motion is that the matter be referred to the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution. 

The motion was agreed to. 

MISSIONARY JURISDICTIONS OUT OF DIOCESES. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The Committee 
reported, the other day, that the change of Article 
V. of the Constitution, proposed by the last House 
of Deputies, had lapsed by default, by accident. I 
now offer the following resolution : 

■ " Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That it be made laio^vn to the different Diocesan 
Conventions. " 

This is the old form, and I propose to renew the 
old form, making the motion in oixler to make the 
form exactly agree with the article of the Constitu- 
tion and prevent doubt. 

" Resolved, That it be made known to the differ- 
ent Diocesan Conventions that it is proposed, in the 
next General Convention, to consider and deter- 
mine on the following proposed alterations to the 
General Constitution of the Church, viz. : 

" That Article V. be amended by adding the fol- 
lowing words at the end of the same, to wit : 

"The General Convention may, upon the apphca- 
tion of the Bishop and Convention of an organized 
Diocese, setting forth that the territory of the 
Diocese is too large for due Episcopal supervision 
by the Bishop of such Diocese, set off a portion 
of such Diocesan teixitory, which shall thereupon 
be placed within or constitute a Missionary Juris- 
diction, as the House of Bishops may determine." 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I would ask 
one question. Was not that passed by the last 
House of Deputies and sent up to the House of 
Bishops ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir, but it must be sent 
dovm the second time, because of the failure to per- 
fect the matter. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. It seems to me 
that the House is the judge as to whether that was a 
failure or not. As I understand, some of the best 
lawyers in the House are of the opmion that it was 
no failure. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. That whole 
question comes up, under the order of the House, at 
two o'clock this afternoon. This motion, as I un- 
derstand, is simply to refer this motion now made 
by the gentleman to the Committee on Amend- 
ments to the Constitution. It will then be reached 
and disposed of by the House. 

The motion to refer was agreed to. 

REDUCTION OF PRINTED JOURNAL. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I offer the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That Message No. 24 from the House 
of Bishops, proposing the appointment of a Joint 
Committee to consider and report measures for the 
reduction and size of the printed Jo urnal, be taken 



122 



from the Calendar, and that the House concur 
therein, and that a committee of two Clerical and 
two Lay Deputies be appointed by the Chair, who, 
together with the Secretary of this House, shall 
compose the Committee." 

The House of Bishops sent this proposition to this 
House on Saturday, and I merely call it up. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. I move 
that it be referred to the Committee on Expenses. 
They have eJready had it under consideration. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I accept that 
amendment. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Would it not be 
better to pass a resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Expenses be 
the Joint Committee on the part of this House." 

Referring it to them is one thing, and constituting 
them a Joint Committee is another. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. Would it do 
to make the Committee on Expenses that Committee 
to confer with the House of Bishops ? 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution of the House 
of Bishops is to refer to a committee of four on the 
part of this House to confer with their Committee. 
The Committee on Expenses is a committee of thir- 
teen. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. lb is the un- 
understanding that the motion is to refer to the Com- 
mittee on Expenses as a joint committee on the part 
of this House, 

The PRESIDENT. Read the resolution. 

The Secretary again read the resolution. 

Rev. Dr. PARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I un- 
derstood it simply to refer to the Committee on Ex- 
penses to consider whether we should agree to the 
appointment of such a joint committee. 

The PRESIDENT. That was the understanding, 
but it is now changed. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I so under- 
stood it. The gentleman proposed this amendment, 
and I accepted it, supposing it was to come into 
mine. I supposed that was what it meant. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts I think it was who moved that the Com- 
mittee on Expenses be the Joint Committee on the 
part of this House. 

Mr. SH ATTUC K. That was my amendment ; but 
I withdraw mine, and second the resolution of Rev. 
Dr. WiUiams. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I have changed 
my resolution by striking out so much of it as pro- 
vides for appointing a joint committee on the part 
of this House, to consist of two Clerical and two Lay 
Deputies, and inserting, "the Committee on Ex- 
penses be the members of the Committee on the part 
of this House. " 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the resolu- 
tion as modilied. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

AMENDMENT OF THE RULES. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I v/ish to give 
notice of a pi-oposed amendment to the rules of order 
by adding to Rule 12 the following : 

" All messages from the House of Bishops commu- 
nicating any legisla.tive action on their pax't shall, 
without debate, be referred to the proper commit- 
tee." 

TRUSTEES OP MISSIONARY BISHOPS' FUND. 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York, 
from the Committee on the State of the Church, 
submitted the following report : 

" The Conmiittee on the' State of the Church re- 
spectfully report that in conionnity -with the re- 

Suirement of Section 1, Canon 3, Title III. of the 
digest, the Committee nominate the foUowiug five 



laymen to constitute a Board of Trustees of the 
Missionaiy Bishops'^Fund, viz., 

Mr. Cambridge Livingston, of the Diocese of New 
York. 

Mr. Henry Meigs, of the Diocese of New Jersey. 
Mr. John B. Stebbins, of the Diocese of Massa- 
chusetts. 

Mr. William H. Battle, ll.d., of the Diocese of 
North Carohna. 

Mr. Lewis N. Whittle, of the Diocese of Georgia. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

" The Committee further express their regret that 
so little, we understand less than $300, has been 
contributed to this important - fund during the past 
three years, and they recommend the following 
resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Tinistees of the Missionary 
Bishops' Fund are requested to issue a circular an- 
nually to the rectors of all our parishes asking an 
offering for this fund." 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
If the Horise listened attentively to the report of the 
Trustees of the Missionary Bishops' Fund, they will 
remember that less than $300 are reported as having 
been offered, thus showing that the Canon is virtu- 
ally a dead letter on om* statutes. The Committee 
simply recommend the issuing of a circular by 
which the attention of the Church shall be called to 
the importance of this fmid. 

Mr. FAIRBANKS, of Tennessee. I move the 
adoption of that report, and that the nominations 
be confirmed. 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN. of Central New York. 
This is the same Board of Trustees that were ap- 
pointed at the last General Convention, and have 
acted during the interim. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the mo- 
tion of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Fair- 
banks]. 

The motion was agreed to. 

STATE OF THE CHURCH. 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
We have another report. I will ask uiy colleague, 
Rev. Dr. Abercrombie, of the Diocese of New Jersey, 
to read it. 

Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey, read 
the following report : 

" The Committee on the State of the Church would 
respectfully report that great inconvenience has 
been felt by your Committee on account of the de- 
lay in the reception of the Journals and other docu- 
ments provided by Canon for the use of this Com- 
mittee, and that the delay has been occasioned in 
part by the omission of a fixed date for presenting 
the said Journals and documents, and the need of an 
imperative Canon on this subject. 

"In view of this, the Committee would recom- 
mend the passage of the following resolutions : 

"Resolved, That Section 4, of Canon 15, of Title 
I. be amended by inserting after the words ' at every 
General Convention ' the words ' on or before the 
first Monday of the session. ' 
j "Resolved, That Sections, of Canon 15, of Title 
I I. be amended by striking out the words, ' It is re- 
I commended that,' and inserting instead thereof the 
i words, ' It shall be the duty of ' ; and after the words 
j ' w*ithin the Diocese,' inserting the words, ' and pre- 
I sent the same to the Secretary of the House of Cleri- 
i cal and Lay Deputies on or before the first Monday 
j of the session.'" 

I Mr. FAIRBANKS, of Tennessee. I move the 
I adoption of the report. 

j The PRESIDENT. According to the rule, resolu- 
I tions reported by the Committee v/ill be placed on 
! the Calendar, to be taken up in order, when reached. 

j ACTION ON BISHOPS' MESSAGES. 

I Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh, from the Com- 



123 



mittee on Canons, submitted the following report, I 
wbich was placed upon the Calendar : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was refer- 
red Messages Nos. 12, 13, 16, and 17, from the House 
of Bishops, respectfully report that they have con- 
sidered the same, and' recommend that the House 
concur in the first two of the said messages, and do \ 
not concur in the two last, as expressed in the fol- 
lowing resolutions: ' 

" 1. "Resolved, That this House concurs in the 
amendment of Subsection 4, of Section 7, of Canon 
12, of Title I. , proposed by the House of Bishops in 
Message No. 12. 

"2. Resolved, That this House concurs in the 
amendment of Section 1, Canon 4, of Title I., pro- 
posed by the House of Bishops in Message No. 13, 

"3. Resolved, That this House does not concur in 
the amendments of Canon 13 of Title I., proposed 
by the House of Bishops in Message No. 16. 

*'4. Resolved, That this House does not concur in 
the amendment of Section 2, of Canon 11, of Title 
II., proposed by the House of Bishops in Message 

HOUSE OF BISHOPS. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. I propose an 
amendment to the third article of the Constitution 
which I desire the Secretary to read ; and I move 
its reference to the Committee on Amendments to 
the Constitution. I desire simply to say a word or 
two under the five-minutes rule in explanation of 
my proposed amendment. 

The PRESIDENT. The amendment will be read. 

The SECRETARY. Mr. Montgomery, of Geor- 
gia, proposes the following substitute for Article 8 
of the Constitution, and moves its reference to the 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution: 

"Whenever a General Convention is held, the 
Bishops, when three or more are present, shall form 
a separate House, with the right to originate and 
propose acts for the concurrence of the House of 
Deputies, composed of Clergy and Laity ; and when 
any proposed act shall have passed the House of 
Deputies, the same shall be transmitted to the House 
of Bishops, who shall have a negative thereupon; 
and all the acts of the Convention shall be authen- 
ticated by both Houses. And in all cases the 
House of Bishops shall signify to the House of 
Deputies their approbation or disapprobation (to- 
gether with their reasons in writing), within three 
days after the proposed act shall have been report- 
ed to them for concurrence ; and in failure thereof 
it shall have the operation of law, unless the Con- 
vention shall finally adjourn within three days after 
such proposed act shall have been reported to the 
House of Bishops, in which event the act proposed 
shall be inoperative. 

"The three days herein allowed the House of 
Bishops for the consideration of a proposed act 
of the House of Deputies, shall commence to 
be counted at 12 o'clock meridian on the first 
day in which the House of Bishops is in ses- 
sion, after the reception of the proposed act. 
Provided, the proposed act is received before that 
hour; otherwise the counting shall begin at 12 
o'clock meridian on the next succeeding day in 
• which the House of Bishops shall be in session. 

"When less than three Bishops attend the Gen- 
eral Convention, the one or two who may be present 
shall be members, or members ex officio, of the 
House of Deputies, with the right to vote, and a 
Bishop shall then preside." 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. The proposed 
amendment is to provide for a difficulty which is 
now before us. When a Canon or resolution of 
this House goes before the House of Bishops, and 
the Convention finally adjourns before the three | 
days expires, what is to become of the action of | 
this House ? It is insisted, by one portion of the ' 



' House, that it has the operation of law, and so our 
I Secretary seems to think in his book giving us a 
I succinct history of the Conventions of our Chmxh, 
and so the House of Bishops seem to have thought 
in 1853. It strikes me that this is altogether an 
erroneous view of the la.w, and my proposal is to 
! settle this question. It would be treating the 
House of Bishops unfairly, as the Houses are now 
constituted, to throw before that body a larse 
amount of new business within three days of the 
adjournment. It strikes me that they ought to 
have more than three days ; but I did not feel au- 
thorized to propose an alteration of the Constitution, 
further than to remove this difficulty, and to get 
rid of that part of the article which has become ob- 
solete. As it nov/ reads, the article requires the 
House of Bishops to report "to the Convention" 
within three days. Its framers undoubtedly meant 
" the House of Deputies," and I have altered that ; 
and in order that there may be no difficulty hereaf- 
ter on this point, I have fixed a definite time at 
which the three days shall commence to count. 
Whenever a resolution or Canon goes to the House 
of Bishops, the period is to commence at twelve 
o'clock on that day, unless it be received after that 
hour, and then from twelve o'clock, not of the 
next succeeding day, but of the next succeeding day 
in which the House of Bishops may be in session, 
because we may send to them on Saturday after- 
noon, and then Sunday would count as part of the 
three days ; and it strikes me that three days of full 
consideration are little enough for the House of 
Bishops ; or, for some reason, they might adjourn 
over Monday, and that would give them but one 
day for the consideration of the action of this 
House. I propose, therefore, to give them the full 
three days. In other respects, the article is as al- 
ready published. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the mo- 
tion to refer the proposed substitute for Article 3 
of the Constitution to the Committee on Amend- 
ments to the Constitution. 
The motion was agreed to. 

REPORT OF THE BOARD OF MISSIONS. 

The Secretary presented the triennial report of 
the Board of Missions, which, on motion of Rev. 
Dr. Cady, of New York, was referred to the Com- 
mittee on the Domestic and Foreign Missionary 
Society. 

STATUS OF BISHOPS, 

Rev. Dr, SCHENCK, of Long Island. I offer 
the following resolution, which I wish to have re- 
ferred to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution, and the Committee on Canons: 

' Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution to enquire 
and report to this House what amendments, if any, 
may be necessary to equalize the status of all the 
Bishops of this Church having either Diocesan or 
Missionary jurisdiction, for the pm-pose of secur- 
ing to all alike the following franchises, namely: 

"1, That all have seats in the House of Bishops 
upon the same terms of membership, 

"2, That all may be eligible and transferable to 
any of the duly constituted jurisdictions of the 
Church, Vhether Diocesan or Missionary, to which 
they may be elected or appointed, 

""3, That all shall have, so far as it is practicable 
under the circumstances, the same jurisdictional or- 
ganization ; to the effect that the co-ordinate ecclesi- 
astical authority of a standing committee may be 
the same in missionary jurisdictions as in Dioceses, 

" 4. That the titular distinction between Diocesan 
Bishops and Missionary Bishops be abrogated, and 
the latter be styled Bishops of such or such Mission- 
ary Jurisdictions. 
" And that the foregoing resolution and its several 



124 



specifications be also referred to the Committee on 
Canons, to report to this House what new Canon, 
changes, or amendments may be necessary to carry 
the same into eif ect. " 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I suggest to the 
gentleman that that resolution had better go to the 
Conmiittee on Amendments to the Constitution 
alone. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Very weU, 
but I proposed submitting it to both those Commit- 
tees becPoUse the resolutions — 

The PRESIDENT. There is no time for discussion 
now. There is only time enough left to take the 
vote on the motion to refer. The question is on the 
motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on ! 
Amendments to the Constitution. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. It is twelve o'clock, and the 
hour for proceeding to the consideration of the order 
of the day has arrived. 

MINISTERS OFFICIATING IN OTHERS' CURES. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. Before the 
doors are closed, I wish to offer an amendment to 
Section 6, of Canon 12, of Title I., entitled "Officia- 
ting of Ministers within the Cures of others." 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be re- 
quested to consider the expediency of amending 
Canon 12 by striking out Subsection 1 of Section 6, 
or by adding thereto the following : 

" This Canon shall not apply to clergymen minis- 
tering to their own parishioners in special services, 
such as baptisms, marriages, or burials, wherever 
they may be required." 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

NEW DIOCESES, 

On motion of Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia, 
the House of Bishops was requested to return Mes- 
sages Nos. 17 a,nd 18, being the action of the House | 
of Deputies on the proposed division of the Dioceses 
of Ohio and Michigan. 

THE SECRET SESSION. 

The hour of twelve having arrived, the chax^el was 
cleared of all persons except members of the House 
of Deputies. The House remained in secret session 
till near five o'clock, when it adjourned till to-mor- 
row at ten o'clock a.m. 



TWELFTH DAY. 

Tuesday, October 20. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
ten a.m. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psalter, 
by Rev. Alexander C. Garrett, d.d., of Nebraska. 
The Lessons were read by Rev. Gr. Jarvis Geer, d.d., 
of New York, The Creed and Prayers were said by 
Rev. Aldert Smedes, d.d., of Noiiih Carolina, The 
Benediction was pronounced by the Right Rev, 
Thomas March Clark, d,d., ll.d., Bishop of Rhode 
Island. 

The PRESIDENT. I am informed by Ighe Sec- 
retary (and it must be obvious to all of us that the 
thing must be so) that we are getting so far behind 
hand on the Calendar in view of the utter indefinite- 
ness of the disposition of the present order of the 
day, that we ought to have made some order last 
evening, suc'i as that which was made on Saturday, 
to sit for miscellaneous business until twelve o'clock, 
the regular time for the order of the day. I would | 
suggest, if it meet the approval of the House, that | 
some member make a motion to that effect now. 
It can be carried by a two-thirds vote. . . I 



Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I make that motion, 
Mr. President. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the House 
continue in open session for miscellaneous and reg- 
ular business until twelve o'clock. 
The motion was agreed to 7iem. con. 
The minutes of yesterday's open session were read 
and a,pproved. 

supplementary DEPUTIES. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, submitted the 
following report : 

" The Committee on Elections beg leave to report 
that they have received satisfactory evidence of the 
I due appointment of the Rev. John D. McCullough, 
as a supplementary Deputy from the Diocese of 
South Carolina, in the place of the Rev. P. J. 
Shand, D.D., who has withdrawn from the House, 
and of Mr. John Stennis as a supplementary Deputy 
from the Diocese of Rhode Island, in place of Mr. 
Claudius B. Farnsworth," 

ORGANIZATION OP THE HOUSE, 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I am instructed 
by the Committee on Canons to move that the 
standing order which was reported by them two or 
three days ago, relative to the organization of the 
House, be recommitted to the Committee on Canons. 
I now make that motion. 
The motion was agreed to. 

NICENE CREED. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut, from 
the Committee on the Prayer-Book, submitted the 
following report: 

"The Committee on the Prayer-Book, to whom 
were referred sundry memorials from the Dioceses 
of Alabama, Albany, Arkansas, Connecticut, EKs- 
ton, Mississippi, Pittsburgh, Texas, Vermont, and 
I "Wisconsin — all in nearly the same language, and 
' petitioning this Body to take such measures as in 
their wisdom may seem proper towards securing 
for use in Divine Worship an English ver- 
sion of the Creed commonly called the Nicene, as 
conformable as may be to the original text ' — have 
had the same under careful consideration, and have 
reached a conclusion unfavorable to granting the 
prayer of the memoiialists. 

"The reasons assigned for a new translation re- 
volve in a circle, and centre about the Filioque. 
It is true that these words were not in the Catholic 
Creed of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople; 
but since they have been so long used by the West- 
em Church, and are explicable in an orthodox sense, 
it would not become this body to enter upon meas- 
ures for revising the Creed with the view of strik- 
ing them out of, or of ' securing an English version,' 
. . . as conformable as may be to the original 
text, until it can be done in conjunction with the 
Church of England and other Churches in commu- 
nion with the same, and with this Church. 

"The Committee, therefore, respectfully submit 
for adoption the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That this Church ought not to enter 
upon any consideration of the proposition to re- 
vise the Nicene Creed, until it can be done in some 
United Council of all those autonomous Churches 
using the English rite, and in communion with this 
Church and the Church of England." 

DECEASED MEMBERS. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts, submitted 
the following report : 
The Committee on the Memorial of Deceased 
I Members respectfully report : At the meeting for 
j orgo.nization, after deliberation, the Committee de- 
cided that such memorial as they might prepare 
I should have reference only to members of the House 



125 



of Deputies, and be confined to those of the last and 

of the present Convention, deceased before the pre- 
sentation of the report. This appeared to be the 
only decision the Committee could reach under 
their appointment, unless special instructions be 
given by the House. The Committee are aware that 
this course will exclude all reference in their me- 
moi-ial to any of the nine Bishops whose useful and 
noble lives on earth have closed during the past 
three years, and also to more than one member 
of the House of Deputies previous to 1871, who have 
commarded through consecutive sessions the respect 
of their fellows, and have had a large part in estab- 
Kshing the Canon Law and in promoting the growth 
and prosperity of the Church. 

Before proceeding to their memorial, the Com- 
mittee recall the past thirty years, which includes 
twelve sessions of the House. Of ninety-three Cleri- 
cal Deputies present in the session of 1844, thirty-two 
are still living, but only six are members of the 
present House: Rev. Drs. Mead, Chase, Wilson, 
Berkley, Scott, and Burgess ; of the Lay Deputies, but 
four are now upon our roll, Messrs. H. J. Bodley, C. 
C. Trowbridge, H. P. Baldwin, P. E. Demill. But 
five of the Bishops consecrated in 1844 are 
members of the Upper House. Sis clergymen and 
six laymen, members of the last House of Depu- 
ties, during the recess have been called to the rest 
of Paradise, and three, one Presbyter and two Lay- 
men, members-elect to the present House. 

I. But few months had elapsed after the adjourn- 
ment of the General Convention of J871, when the 
first break occurred in the circle of the members. Mr. 
John Duncan, of Mississippi, twice a Deputy to the 
Convention, died early in 1872, aged about 60 years. 
He was a highly esteemed citizen, a valued friend 
and counsellor, a zealous and trusted communicant 
of the Church, and his departure is widely regret- 
ted. 

II. In the early part of October, of 1872, George 
Anderson Gordon, of Alabama, followed to the 
hidden world, at the early age of 42 years. He had 
attained eminence as a lawyer and held firmly the 
confidence of his fellow-citizens. He gave his ser- 
vices, with much zeal and skill, as Superintendent 
of Sundaj^-schools, and in many Church works was 
as the right hand of his rector. 

ill. After the lapse of but a few weeks, December 
5, 1872, the Diocese of Western New York, as well 
as the entire State, was called to grieve over the 
death of Thomas A. Johnson, ll.d. He had been 
elected a Justice of the Supreme Court of New York 
for three successive terms of eight years each. His 
last election was without opposition. He was a 
member of this House in 1868 and 1871. He was an 
accomplished scholar, a learned jurist, a laborious, 
wise, incorruptible Judge, a pure and good man. 
He loved the Church, and freely gave his time and 
talents to her service. At the age of threescore and 
ten he went to the Christian's rest. 

IV. On the 12th of December, 1872, Rev. N. W. 
Taylor Root, a Deputy in the last Convention, 
from Maine, bowed beneath a very distressing dis- 
ease, at the age of 41 years. His ministry had 
been for about fourteen years, and chiefly spent in 
Rhode Island. He had attained reputation as a 
brilliant writer and preacher, and as a pastor he 
has left a record of laborious and successful service. 
His service in this House was confined to the ses- 
sion of 1871. 

V. On January 27, 1873, the next of our House was 
called to Paradise, William Thompson Read, of 
the Diocese of Delaware. He departed full of Chris- 
tian honor at the age of 81 years. He had been a 
member of this House for eleven consecutive ses- 
sions. He was ever disting-uished for an intelligent 
and humble sacrifice of himself to the service in the 
Church of our Lord Jesus. 



[ VI. On the morning of Ash Wednesday, 1873, en- 
1 tered into rest the Rev. Charles B. Dana, d.d., of 
Mississippi, a member of this House in 1871 and in 
\ 1868. Dr. Dana was ordained Deacon and Priest by 
j Bishop Moore, of Virginia, in 1834 and 1835. He was 
rector of Christ Church, Alexandria, from 1834 to 
1861, and afterwards his labors were in Mississippi. 
Dr. Dana was truly "an Israelite indeed, in whom 
was no guile," a man of great purity of character, 
and simplicity of manner, a thorough Christian 
gentleman, loyal to the Church in all her require- 
ments, a ripe scholar, a model pastor, and an edify- 
j ing teacher. 

VII. Rev. Francis R. Hanson, of Alabama, was 
I relieved from earthly service on October 21, 1873. 

I He had attained to more than seventy years, and 
i had been for forty of them a Presbyter of the 
i Diocese of Alabama. Early in life he labored as a 
missionary of the Church in the foreign field, but 
! for the larger part of his ministry as a parish 
Priest ; he served with unusual unselfishness, purity, 
and devotion, and cleaving closely to his people in 
great adversities. He was a member of the House 
in four Conventions. 

VIII. Near the close of the autumn of 1873 Rich- 
ard D. Moore, m.d., a Deputy in 1871 from Geor- 
gia, was added to the list of deceased members. 
He had passed more than sixty years. He was a 
true man, a loyal son of the Church, an humble and 
devoted servant of our Lord. 

I IX. In December, 1873, after a short illness, an- 
other valued son of the Church's ministry laid down 
his earthly duties. Rev. Samuel B. Babcock, 
i D.D., of Mass., was in several sessions a member of 
I this House. He labored in a single parish for forty 
j years, and gathered to himself such character and 
; influence as belong to a brave conscientiousness, 
I to diligence, patience, zeal, abounding tenderness, 
j in a word, to fidelity to the Lord and to men. A 
life so worthy claims a revered memory. 
X. On February 21, 1874, closed the earthly life 
! of Rev. Richard S. Mason, d.d., of North Caro- 
I lina, at about fourscore. His first attendance 
I as a member of this House was in 1841, and 
he has been a Deputy from that Diocese on every 
i occasion of its representation lintii tliis year. For 
I more than fifty-six years he served our Loi d in the 
I ministry of His Church. With the exception of a 
i few years in the office of President of Geneva Col- 
1 lege. New York, and of Nevvarii College, Delaware, 
he was rector in North Carolina. He was a man 
of extensive and accurate learning, with a happy 
facility of bringing it into practical use. He was an 
able minister of the New Testament and a faithful 
pastor. He was distinguished for simplicity and 
godly sincerity, for puritj^ and honesty. No earth- 
i ly consideration of gain or loss could have tempted 
i him to stray from integrity and duty. Dr. Mason 
was born in the Island of Barbadoes in 1795, gradu- 
ated at the University of Pennsylvania in 1811, was 
ordained Deacon by Bishop White in 1817, and 
priest by Bishop Ruland C. Moore in 1820. 
i XI. In the early part of the year 1874, Samuel 
I F. Patterson, Lay Deputy in 1871 from the Diocese 
j of North Carolina, departed this life. He was born 
I in the State of Virginia, but removed to North Car- 
I olina while he was quite a young m.an, and passed 
! his long and useful life in the western part of the 
State. He filled many oflBces of high responsibility, 
and was always distinguished for the purity of his 
character and the integrity of his life. He was a 
devoted Churchman, and after having attained the 
age of three score years and ten, he died universally 
' lamented. 

[ XII. On April 19, 1874, another valued laborer was 
' called awaj^ from us — Rev. Abner Jackson, d.d., 
j LL.D., a Deputy from Connecticut, and Chairman 
1 of the Committee on Christian Education. Dr. 



126 



Jackson was born November 4, 1811, in Penn- 
sylvania. He graduated in 1837 from Trinity Col- 
lege, Hartford, with the highest honors, and entered 
immediately after upon the office of tutor in the 
same college. In 1838 he became Professor of An- 
cient Languages. He was ordained by Bishop Brown- 
ell in the same year. Twenty 3^ears later he became 
President of Hobart College. After filling that posi- 
tion for nine years he returned to Trinity College 
as its President, and died in that service. Dr. Jack- 
son was a noble type of the Christian scholar. 
For nearly forty years he was engaged in the 
great work of education. He was a careful and 
thorough student of literature, science, and theol- 
ogy. He was unusually popular with his associates 
and the students. His influence over the latter 
was such as can come only from a living Christian 
example and a loving guide. He had broad sympa- 
thies, but he never permitted them to destroy his 
sense of justice, his conviction of duty, or his rever- 
ence for principle. He has left a noble record. 

XIII. ISTow, in the autumn of 1874, three Deputies- 
elect are added to the list of the dead. By a sin- 
gular and sad accident, on the evening of September 
15, 1874, the Rev. Frederick Brooks, of Ohio, sank 
to death beneath the waters of Boston Harbor. He 
was a young man, thirty-two years of age, among 
the very youngest of the members elected to this 
House ; yet he had won his way to more than one 
position of responsibility in his ow-n Diocese. He 
will be remembered as a successful pastor, a scholar 
of ability, and a thinker of prominence. The beauty 
and hope of Israel are fallen. 

XIV. But four days before the opening of this 
Convention, Peter W. Gray, Deputy-elect from 
the Diocese of Texas, died at his residence in that 
State. Prom the organization of the Diocese, 
twenty-five years since, he has occupied places of 
trust, and was a member of this House in 1871 and 
1859. He filled for a time the office of Judge of the 
Supreme Court in Texas till compelled bv feeble 
health to resign, and was held in honor by the people. 
As a Churchman he showed himself earnest for the 
Lord, faithful to Him, and true to His cause. His 
age was fifty-five. 

XV. Since the present session of the Convention 
opened, Major Josiah Hunt, Deputy -elect from the 
Diocese of Missouri, has died suddenly, at the age of 
about fifty-five. He pursued for many years the 
profession of civil engineer, and latterly that of 
banker. He was a sterling Churchman, much 
esteemed, and wholly trusted. His gifts and labors 
will be sadly missed throughout the Diocese. 

The Committee recommend that the House adopt 
the following resolutions : 

Resolved, That the reported memorial of the Com- 
mittee on Memorials of Deceased Members be 
printed as an appendix to the Journal of this House. 

Resolved, That this House mourn the decease from 
the Church militant of these faithful soldiers and 
earnest followers of the Lord. 

Resolved, That this House holds their memory in 
reverence, and desires to place on record its estimate 
of their worth and service ; and, while blessing God 
for them, prays for grace to follow their good ex- 
amples, and with them to become partners of the 
heavenly kingdom. 

For the Committee, 

Respectfully submitted, 

ALEXANDER BURGESS, 

Chairman. 

Cambridge Livingston, Secretary. 

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. I beg leave to 
suggest that the name of General Samuel F. Pat- 
terson, a Deputy from the Diocese of North Caro- 
lina in 1871, is omitted. He was a man of the high- 
est respectability. I wish to add his name to those 
recorded in the report. 



The PRESIDENT. I was about to suggest that 
we take the vote immediately on these resolutions, 
and take it standing, but as there is already pro- 
posed one amendment, and there may be others, 
I suppose that the report had better go upon the 
Calendar, in order that proper amendments may be 
made before it is taken up. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that it 
be recommitted, because it had better be made com- 
plete before it comes to us. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the report be 
recommitted. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I would 
like to say to the House that this report is longer 
than we had designed to make it, but it was quite 
as short as we were able to make it this year, 
there seemed to be so much that could be said, 
and it seemed to be desirable that there should be a 
record of dates connected with the report. The 
Committee made all the enquiry they could ; but, 
as it appears, they have omitted one case, and made 
an error in another. These can readily be cor- 
! rected. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion is to recommit 
the report for the purpose of perfecting it. 
The motion was agreed to. 

petitions and memorials. 

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky. I have a 
! memorial. 

! Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
I was absent at a meeting of the Committee on the 
State of the Church when that Committee was call- 
ed for a report. I ask the privilege of now pre- 
senting it. 

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky. The memorial 
I present is on the subject of Ritual. I ask its refer- 
ence to the Committee on Prayer-Book. 

The PRESIDENT. Will the Chairman of the 
Committee on the State of the Church allow that 
memorial to be presented ? 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
"^GS si I* 

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky, presented the 
following memorial, which was referred to the 
Committee on the Prayer-Book : 

"The memorial of the undersigned, lay communi- 
cants of the Church, respectfully showeth : 

"That your Memorialists fear it is intended to 
propose at the next session of your body some action 
which will abridge the liberty heretofore enjoyed 
by the clergy and laity of the Church, and your Me- 
morialists earnestly deprecate any such action, for 
the following reasons : 

" 1. Because any legislation on Ritual can only be 
effected by changing the Prayer-Book. The law on 
the subject of Ritual rests upon Rubric and not up- 
on Canon ; and any alteration of the Prayer-Book, 
and especially during a time of great and general 
agitation, might be injurious to other and more im- 
portant interests. 

"2. Because it does not appear that Ritual has 
manifested any such power of growth during the 
past six years as to justifj^ anxiety as to its future ; 
while during the same period there has been mani- 
fested a strong tendency in all parts of the Church 
to conform more exactly to the order of the Prayer- 
Book, and to increase the dignity and solemnity of 
the services of the Church. 

' ' 3. Because any one who examines the statistics 
of the Church for' the last thirty or forty years will 
fibnd that her marvellous growth, and the develop- 
ment of her life in its various forms, have been con- 
current with the increase of reverence and devo- 
tion. The increase of communicants upon popula- 
tion during the past six years will be found to have 
I been greater than at any period in the history of 
' the Church. 



127 



"4. Because the Catholic Church has always in- 
cluded men of many minds, united in agreement on 
the essentials of the faith and in submission to Ap- 
ostolic order, and is comprehensive of different 
schools and parties ; if, therefore, it be thought ne- 
cessary to restrain Ritual, it will be needful to estab- 
lish a rule of absolute uniformity, and to bring 
sharplv up to that standard those who fall below. 
Your Memorialists conceive that this pohcy would 
be most inexpedient, and that it is not desirable to 
force congregations to accept a Ritual to which they 
are unused and opposed. 

"5. Because as our doctrinal and ritual systems 
are very closely imited, there can be no legislation 
on Ritual without danger of unsettling doctrine. 

"6. Because as the subject of Ritualism has been 
fully discussed and considered in two General Con- 
ventions to the exclusion of matters of greater 
practical concern, and the result of their united Tvis- 
dom has been to take no action, such wisdom having 
been indicated by the fact that no such evils have 
arisen as were predicted or feared, it seems to your 
Memoriahsts that there should be an end to agita- 
tion. 

" Your Memoriahsts, therefore, humbly pray that 
no change may be made in the law of this Church 
relating to the celebration of Divine Service, but 
that the same liberty continue to be enjoyed as here- 
fore within the hmits of the Book of Common Pray- 
er, and under the same Episcopal authority that has 
heretofore been exercised in this Church. 
SILAS F. MILLER. FRANK W. MAURY. 
MARGARET MILLER. S. E. TSCHIFFELY. 



MARY J. MILLER. 
JBANJSTIE M. MILLER. 
J. V. COVv'LING. 
H, W. COWLING. 
MRS. J. S. MOORE. 
A. F. MOORE. 
MOLLIE T. MOORE. 
J. M. BODE-TE. 
MARY E. BODINE. 

E. C. BODINE. 

L. D. HAMPTON. 
W. R. JOHNSON. 

F. H. JOHNSON. 
E. H. WARFIELD. 



F. G. BOLSFORD. 
OLIVE S. BOLSFORD. 
JOSEPH BENEDICT. 
MASON MAURY. 
JOHN B. WOOD. 
SALLIE S. MAURY. 
MATTIE F. MAURY. 
E. C. HUDSON. 
MARY DELANO. 
E. G. NASH. 
GEORGE CROSS. 
R. M. KELLY. 
NETTIE W. KELLY. 
SALLIE S. WARFIELD. 



Mr. FAIRBANKS, of Tennessee. I present a 
memorial from the Convention of the Diocese of 
Tennessee, unaniinously adopted, for the repeal of 
the proviso attached to Article 5 of the Constitution 
by the last General Convention, requiring satisfac- 
tory assurance of a suitable provision for the sup- 
port of the Episcopate in the contemplated new 
Diocese when one is formed — a pecuniary provision 
or price upon the formation of a new Diocese, 
which was never before incorporated in the legisla- 
tion of this or any other Chm'ch. The most concise 
statement of the grounds of this application will be 
made by having the Secretary read the memorial, 
which is bri-^f , and will not occupy the five minutes 
allowed me in presenting it. 
The SECRETARY read the memorial as follows : 
"Memorial to the General Convention of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
of America: 

"That the provision contained in Article 5 of 
the Constitution, whatever may be its value in ref- 
erence to the older and stronger Dioceses, 
must necessarily operate as an absolute prohi- 
bition of the erection of new Dioceses in those 
parts of the L^nited States where the growth of the 
Church is retarded by the great extent of territory 
and sparseness of population, rendering due Epis- 
copal oversight aiwa^ys difficult, and to a considera- 
ble degree impracticable, and where the work is 
altogether of a missionary character. 

" To require of the impoverished Church in the 



South and Southwest, feeble in strength and num- 
bers at best, the raising of an Episcopate Fund suf- 
ficient* to support a proposed new Episcopate, is 
imposing a condition precedent impossible to be 
met. Very few of the Dioceses where such division 
is most imperatively demanded for the growth and 
extension of the Church have ever been able to 
provide an endowment or Episcopal Fund; and we 
beheve that no new Diocese would be attempted to 
be estabhshed without provision in some form for 
the support of its Episcopate, the existing proviso 
requiring satisfactory assurance of such provision, 
which has been construed to mean by endowment, 
and of the • smtableness ' or extent, of which the 
General Convention, and not the Diocese, is made 
the judge, would effectually prevent, in most cases, 
even the effort to obtain such division. The Dio- 
cese of Tennessee has been for many years looking 
forward to a division of its very extensive jurisdic- 
tion; but imder this proviso, if an Episcopate Fund 
is requisite, we regard the matter as impracticable 
for many years at least. Out of forty-one Dioceses 
now in existence in this country, but thirteen have 
an Episcopate Fund of $30,000, and but seven have 
a fund of over $40,000. The great majority of the 
Dioceses support their Bishops by assessments upon 
the parishes, and your memorialists beUeve that if 
this matter of the support of the Bishops were to be 
left as formerly, to those who are directly interested 
in the question, there will be no lack of sufficient, suit- 
able, and cheerfid provision for such support. 

" Your memoriahsts, therefore, would' respectful- 
ly urge upon the Genei-al Convention of the Church 
the amendment of Article 5 by the omission of the 
following words : 'And such consent shall not be 
given by the General Convention until it has satis- 
factory assurance of a suitable provision for the sup- 
port of the Episcopate in the contemplated new Dio- 
cese.' 

" Resolved, That the Deputies to the next General 
Convention from the Diocese of Tennessee be in- 
structed to present this memorial, and to request 
action in accordance therewith." 

The memorial was referred to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution. 

ERECTION OF CHURCHES. 

Rev. Dr. VAN DECJSEN, of Central New York, 
from the Committee on the State of the Church, re- 
ported that the Committee had passed the following 
resolution, and presented it for the consideration of 
the House : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on the State of 
the Church recommend to the General Convention 
to take such measures as in their wisdom they may 
deem best, to encourage the formation of associa- 
tions, general and diocesan, to aid in the erection of 
Churches, whei-eby the bounty of the Church in 
this direction may be called out in larger measure, 
and greater confidence inspired tn its application." 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
In connection with that report, Mr. President, I 
would state that when a report was made yesterday 
by my colleague. Rev. Dr. Abercrombie, of jNew 
Jersey, in regard to an amend-ment of the Canons, 
it was, by oversight, not referred to the Committee 
on Canons. He desires to have the privilege of 
making a motion of reference. 

The 'PRESIDENT. The gentleman desires to 
have the report made yesterday referred to the 
Committee on Canons ? 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York, 
"^©s sir. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the report 
made yesterday by Rev. Dr. Abercrombie, from the 
j Committee on the State of the Church, be referred 
! to the Committee on Canons, 
i The motion was agreed to. 



128 



DEATH OF BISHOP MCILVAINE. 

Rev. Dr. BURR, of Ohio. I offer the following : 

" Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty €rod, in 
His wise providence, to remove from the scene of 
his earthly life and labors the Right Rev. Charles 
Pettit Mcllvaine, d.d., d.c.l., Bishop of the Pro- 
testant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Ohio ; 

" Be it Resolved, That this House do hereby make 
solemn record of the event which has deprived the 
Church of one of its brightest lights, and left a 
shadow not soon to be dispelled ; at the same time 
this House would express a sense of profound grati- 
tude to the Great Disposer of events that this emi- 
nent servant of the Church was spared through a 
ministry of afty-three years, more than forty of 
*vhich were spent in the Episcopate, to labor so 
abundantly and effectively for the advance and 
spread of the Gospel of Christ and the extension of 
His Church, and by his holy life to adorn the doc- 
trines of God our Saviom*." 

I do not propose, sir, to occupy the attention of 
the House in more than a very few words. The 
subject of the resolution does not need eulogy ; his 
record is on high, but there is an honored custom 
which has prevailed for a long time, perhaps from 
the beginning of our Church organization here, of 
putting on our records some testimonial, some 
memorial of those who have departed this life — the 
distinguished members of the Church — the eminent 
servants of God who have gone to their rest and 
their reward, vv^e have many such — more to record 
at this Convention than ever before. Nine of our 
honored and right reverend fathers have entered 
into their rest since our last session. I simply bring- 
forward one honored name to be put upon our 
records, that it may be transmitted as far as we can 
transmit it on our records. The memories of these 
eminent fathers of the Church ought to be very 
precious to us ; their examples should be kept co]i- 
stantly before our minds ; and I think, if we here 
would think moie of them, it would go far to 
sanctify our proceedings and give effect to all we 
do. I move the adoption of the resolution. 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
Mr. President, while I concur very cordially in all 
that my brother has said m relation to the subject 
of this resolution, I would respectfully suggest to 
him that it has not been the custom of this House to 
take definite action in regard to each particular 
death in the House of Bishops ; but the Committee 
on the State of the Church at the close of the 
session has usually made reference to those several 
cases of mortality-, and offered proper remarks on 
the subject. I would therefore respectfully suggest 
that it would be more proper, perhaps, to have the 
resolution referred to the Committee on the State 
of the Church, as there will be eight others to be 
noticed ; and if remarks should follow, as they 
probably would in each case, a great deal of our 
time would be occupied, while the Committee on 
the State of the Church could readily include them 
all in their report. 

Rev. Dr. BURR, of Ohio. I have no objection to 
that, but I see no reason why the House should not 
take separate action upon memorial resolutions. I 
remember distinct resolutions in regard to Bishop 
Kemper and other Bishops, and as I supposed that 
to be the general and prevailing custom, I took the 
liberty of offering this resolution. I have no ob- 
jection, however, to its being referred to the Com- 
mittee on the State of the Church. 

The PRESIDENT. I would remmd the venerable 
Presbyter from Ohio that it was on account of the 
time taken up at the last Convention in regard to 
these brethren deceased, that the standing Commit- 
tee on Memorials of Deceased Members was appoint- 
ed and made a permanent Committee of this House, 



1 Rev. Dr. BURR, of Ohio. That relates to mem- 
bers of this House. 

I The PRESIDENT. Yes ; but the same principle 
applies, of course, to members of the other House. 
If you accept the suggestion of the Deputy from 
Central New York, I will put the question in that 
form. 

Rev. Dr. BURR, of Ohio. I have no objection to 
accepting it, provided the memorial resolution goes 
on our Journal. 
The PRESIDENT. It wiU certainly go there. 
Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York, 
j My impression is that the Committee on the State 
of the Church usually name each individual in their 
report. I now hold in my hand another resolution 
j referring to the late Bishop of Iowa, so that there 
I would seem to be a propriety in referring aU such 
resolutions to the Committee on the State of the 
Church. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the two re- 
solutions jast offered be referred to the Committee 
1 on the State of the Church. 
I The motion was agreed to. 

j ALMS-BASIN PRESENTED TO ENGLISH CHURCH. 

! Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. I 
, beg the indulgence of yourself, Mr. President, and 
I of the House, to read in yom- hearing a letter re- 
j ceived from the Archbishop of Canterbmy with ref- 
! erence to the presentation of an alms-basin from the 
j members of this Convention to the Church of Eng- 
I land. I ask it as an indulgence because the act of 
! presentation was not the joint act of our body, but 
i was the act of individual members of the body and 
! did not come before the House for any corporate 
: action. This letter and this act are associated with 
the late Right Rev. Bishop of Ohio, Bishop Mcll- 
vaine. I may take occasion to say here, in order to 
give my report to the members of this House, which 
I have never been able to do until this moment, that 
this basin was procured from the Messrs. Kirk, of 
the city of Baltimore ; the pi-ice of it was one thou- 
sand dollai^, and it is said to be the finest piece of 
work of silver and gold and pi-ecious stones com- 
bined, that has ever been made upon our continent. 
It was sent through the hands of the Bishop of Lich- 
field, who presented it on bended knees to the Ai'ch- 
bishop of Canterbury, to be placed upon the altar of 
St. Paul's Cathedral, and in this basin the Bishops of 
the Church of England made theii' own offerings 
first. It is understood that the basin is to be pre- 
served by the Archbishop and transmitted to his 
successors, to be used in aU future times at the con- 
secration of English Bishops and the opening of the 
Houses of Convocation, and upon all public and great 
occasions in which the Church of England is inter- 
ested, and to be preserved as a pledge and token of 
unity and good-will between our own Church and 
our Mother Church of England. 

I may say here, too, that both Houses of the Con- 
vocation, by resolution adopted unanimously, went 
in their scarlet Convocation robes from their sittings 
in the Chamber near Westminster Abbey, in solemn 
procession, to the celebration of the Holy Com- 
munion in St. Paul's Cathedral, especially to do 
honor to the American Church, and in this pro- 
cession Bishop Mcllvaine and the Lord Bishop of 
j Lichfield carried our basin, and it was presented to 
j the Archbishop of Canterbury in form. Nothing 
I could have been more hearty and gracious than 
their acceptance and their treatment of this token 
and expression of our good-will. Here let me say 
that the idea of presenting this token was suggested 
to me by my presence, in 1852, in the grounds of 
Exeter College in the University of Oxford, seeing 
with the delegation which we sent over by invita- 
tion on the 150th anniversary of the founding of the 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, when 



129 



members of the University and of the Chm^ch of 
England presented such a basin to onr own Church, 
which we use at the opening of this Convention 
and at the opening of the sessions of the Board 
of Missions. This is an acknowledgment and a 
reciprocal act in return for what we first received 
from them. I call on the Secretary to read the 
letter. 

The SECRETARY read as follows : 

"Lambeth Palace, S.E., Aug. 8, 1872. 
''Rt. Rev. and Dear Brother : 

" I have to annomice to you that both Houses of 
the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury have 
unanimously passed the following resolution : 

" That this House requests its President to allow 
his address, delivered in St. Paul's Cathedral on the 
occasion of the presentation of the alms-basin, to be 
communicated synodically to the Bishops, Clergy, 
and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
the United States. 

"In accordance with this resolution, I beg leave 
to forward to you a copy of the few words which, 
at the celebration of the Holy Communion in St. 
Paul's Cathedral, I addressed to the Bishop of Lich- 
field and the congregation of Clergy and Laity as- 
sembled on the very interesting occasion of the pre- 
sentation of the gift sent by the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church of America to the mother Church of 
England. You have already received by telegram 
an account of the proceedings of that important 
day. The words which I spoke were as follows : 

"In virtue of my office, I am commissioned on 
this occasion to represent the Church of England. 
I receive this offering of love from our sister Church 
beyond the Atlantic, and I beg all of you who are 
here present, and all Christian people, to unite in 
your prayers to Almighty God that the richest 
bless ngs of his Holy Spirit may descend upon our 
bretm-en who thus express to us their Christian 
love, that for ages to come these two Churches and 
these two great nations, united in one worship of 
our one Lord in one faith, as they are sprung from 
one blood, may be the instruments under the pro- 
tection of oui' G-racious Redeemer of spreading his 
Gospel throughout the world, and securing the 
blessings of Christian civilization for the human 
race. 

"I beg that you will assure the Committee of 
which you are a member, and the Houses of the Gen- 
eral Convention of your Church, how highly prized 
by all English Churchmen has been the expression 
of regard which you have commissioned the Bishop 
of Lichfield to communicate to us. We beg heartily 
to thank the members of your Church for the kind 
reception accorded to our brethren who represented 
us in October of last year. 

"The beautiful present, expressive of your kindly, 
Christian regard, has been deposited in my keeping 
to be used at the most solemn ceremonials of our 
Church in Lambeth Chapel, and elsewhere; and I 
trust it will ever remain in the hands of my suc- 
cessors, a pledge of that Christian love which binds 
together the daughter and the mother Church. 

"i remain, Rt. Rev. and dear brother, 
" Your faithful brother and servant in Christ, 
" A. C. CAjSTTUAR, [Seal] 
"Primate of all England and Metropolitan. 
" The Right Rev. Horatio Potter, 
" Bishop of New York." 

Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. I 
would simplj^ say that the Bishop of New York kind- 
ly allowed me to use his name as chairman of om* 
Committee, he furnishing the letter of presentation 
addressed to the Archbishop. I also was kindly 
allowed to use the name of the Rt. Rev. Bishop 
McCoskry, of Michigan, and also of the Lay Deputy 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. V/iUiam Welsh, the Com- 



I mittee consisting of two members of each House, 
and this letter of the Archbishop was read yester- 
I day in the House of Bishops, and is now properly 

before the Convention, 
i Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Does the 
'■ gentleman offer any resolutions ? 

Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. I 
j would move simply that this correspondence be 
j placed on our Journal. It does not properly belong 
I to the House, being the act of individual members of 
j the House ; but I v/ould ask as a matter of courtesy 

that it be placed in the appendix to the Journal. 
I Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. There was 
I an omission in the way the gentleman made his 
j statement. He said that the basin was sent to the 
I Bishop of Lichfield for presentation to the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, which was the case, but 
Bishop Mcllvame being there at the time, the gen- 
tleman may remember the fact that he took hold of 
one side of the basin and the Bishop of Lichfield of 
the other, and that it was a joint presentation to the 
Archbishop of Canterbury. That point was omitted 
in the gentleman's remarks just now. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. One gentleman 
being on one Imee and the other one standing, as I 
haDpened to see. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. It only has 
this significance, that the Prelates of these churches 
united in the presentation, whether they were stand- 
ing up or sitting down. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the corre- 
spondence be printed in the appendix to the Journal. 
The motion was agreed to. 

MISSIONARY TERRITORY FORMED FROM A DIOCESE. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island, from the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution, sub- 
mitted the following' report : 

"The Committee on Amendments to the Con- 
stitution, to which was referred a resolution direct- 
ing them to consider and report to this Convention 
whether any Constitutional amendment is neces- 
sary to empower the General Convention of this 
Church to set off a missionary territory from the 
bounds of a Diocese, at the request of said Diocese, 
duly made known, have given full consideration to 
the subject, and respectfully report : 

"That there is no provision whatever upon the 
subject of missions in the Constitution of the 
Church. The only provision for either foreign or 
domestic missions made by the Church is by the 
several Canons : Title I., Canon 13, "Of Bishops," 
Sections 7, 8, and Title III., Canon 9, "Of the 
Board of Missions." The sections of Canon 13, 
Title I., relate to the election of Missionary Bishops, 
and to the duties, rights, and privileges of these 
Bishops, the first of these sections (Section 7) re- 
lating' to Domestic Missionary Bishops, and the 
second (Section 8; relating to Foreign Missionary 
Bishops. The last clause in each of these sections 
requires the Missionary Bishop to report to each 
General Convention his proceedings, and the state 
and condition of his field of mission work, and 
once a year, at least, to report to the Board of Mis- 
sions. Canon 9, of Title III., which was first 
adopted in 1871, by its Section 1, Clause 1, makes 
it the duty of the General Convention, at every 
triennial meeting, on nomination by a joint com- 
mittee of the two Houses, designated for that pur- 
pose, to appoint a Board of Missions for the man- 
agement of the General Missions, Foreign and Do- 
mestic, of this Church. The second clause [2] of 
this section makes all the Bishops of this Church 
ex-officio members of this Board, and provides that 
the elective members shall be selected from the 
Presbyters and Laymen of the several Dioceses in 
such numerical proportion as shall from time to 
time be determined. Section 2 authorizes the 



130 



Board of Missions to adopt a constitution and mod- 
ify the same as occasion may require : 

"Provided, That such Constitution and 
Amendments shall be of no force until the 
same shall have been submitted to and ap- 
proved by the General Convention. And 
Section 3 directs that the Board of Missions 
shall make report of its doings to every Triennial 
General Convention. This last Canon, Canon 9, Ti- 
tle III., was adopted at our last General Convention, 
very plainly for the purpose of incorporating the 
]^omestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States 
of America, which had existed for a long time be- 
fore, into the Church, and uniting the Society and 
the Church in and by means of the Board of Mis- 
sions, as their agent for conducting and controlling 
missions. This Constitution, originally framed in 
1823, was repeatedly amended, the last amendment 
being made and approved by the Convention of 
1871, and at that time, as your Committee believe, 
first ordered to be printed in the Appendix to the 
Journal of the Convention. It appears to have been 
considered necessary (probably to claim the right to 
and management of funds and property) to preserve 
the existence of the Society while it was substantial- 
ly brought under the control of the General Con- 
vention by the terms of its own Constitution. The 
Society was declared to comprehend all persons 
members of this Church, and the Board of Missions 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America, therein provided for, was en- 
trusted with the exercise of all the corporate powers 
of the institution, subject to the General Convention 
and within the limitations contained in the said 
Constitution and any amendments thereafter made 
in the same. This Constitution also provides for 
the election and constitution of the Board of Mis- 
sions so as to give the General Convention the con- 
trol of it, and in its Article IV. declares : ' To the 
Board of Missions shall be entrusted the supervision 
of the general missionary operations of the Church, 
with power to estabhsh missionary stations, appoint 
missionaries, make appropriations of money, regu- 
late the conducting of missions . . . and to 
enact all by-laws which they may deem necessary 
for their own government and the government of 
their committees : Provided always, That in rela- 
tion to organized Dioceses having Bishops, the 
Board shall regulate the number of missionary sta- 
tiom, and, with the consent of the Bishop, shall se- 
lect the stations. 

"Article 11, for the guidance of the Committee, 
declares that the missionary field is always to be 
regarded as one — the world— and Article 12 forbids 
any missionary to ' be sent to officiate in any Dio- 
cese without the consent of the ecclesiastical autho- 
rity of the same. ' 

" These Canons, aud the Constitution of the 
Society approved by our Conventions, all clearly 
show that there was nothing to prevent the Board 
of Missions temporarily occupying as mission- 
ary ground any portion of an organized Diocese, 
with the consent of the Bishop and its Con- 
vention. Indeed, by Section 16, of Title I. (2) 
a Diocese without a Bishop, or whose Bishop is 
under judicial disability, may by its Convention 
alone be placed under the full Episcopal charge and 
authority of a Missionary Bishop. In 1868-1871, a 
portion of the Diocese of Nebraska, the Indian 
Reservation within its territory, its Bishop and 
Convention concurring, or requesting, was united 
with other Indian territory and created a new mis- 
sionary jurisdiction or district, under the name of 
Niobrara, by resolution only, and this House elected 
the Bishop nominated to them by the House of 
Bishops without any objection whatever. 

" The Committee are of opinion, therefore, that it 



j does not require an Amendment of the Constitution 
I to empower the General Convention, through the 
agency of the Board of Missions, and by the pro- 
! cesses marked out in the Canons and in the Con- 
stitution of the Society, which may be considered 
to be the Constitution of the Board of Missions, with 
the consent of the Bishop and Conventions of any 
organized Diocese, to occupy or set apart any por- 
tion of such Diocese as missionary ground. 

" This would be a full response to the terms of the 
resolution referred to the committee, but it is pro- 
per to point out that this does not recognize the 
right of the Convention, even with the consent or at 
the request of the Bishop and Convention of any 
Diocese, permanently to dismember a Diocese. 
Your Committee are induced to add this because it 
has come to their knowledge that perhaps something 
like this has very innocently been done, but without 
any committal of the Convention to its lawful- 
ness. 

"CH. H. HALL, Chairman. 
T. U. DUDLEY, Jr. 
BENJ. A. ROGERS. 
ISAAC HAZELHURST. 
GEO. F. COMSTOCK. 
G. W. RACE. 
E. T. WILDER. 
SAMUEL B. RUGGLES. 
EDWARD McCRADY. 
J. W. STEVENSON. 
EDMUND H. BENNETT. 
W. F. BULLOCK." 
Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move, sir, 
that the House agree to this report. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Is there no reso- 
lution appended to it ? 
Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. No, sir. 
Mr. WELSH, of Pennsjdvania. If I understand 
I the report rightly, the Committee on Amendments 
I to the Constitution are clearly of the opinion that 
] this House, with the consent of the House of Bishops 
and the Board of Missions, have a right to allow, if 
any Bishop desires it, a certain portion of his Dio- 
cese to be set off and become a missionary jurisdic- 
tion and to elect a Bishop therefor. Do I under- 
stand rightly ^ 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I imagine that 
is about it. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. But the Com- 
mitte have prepared no resolution to submit to the 
House. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. As I understand, 
after our discussion whether there should be a res- 
olution or not proposed to this House, we concluded 
that the proper time for debating that question wiU 
be when the nomination of a Bishop is made to us. 
We are asked a qtiestion as to the construction of 
the Constitution. We give an answer. The House 
may agree to it now or not, or may agree to it then 
or not. We have nothing to propose. The matter 
as to how it shall be done does not belong to the 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. 
The Diocese of Texas for years has been put off all 
the time, and has naturally become somewhat im- 
patient. The Diocese of California stands very 
I much in the same relation. The Committee think 
I they see a way by which this can be done by the 
proper Committee and by the proper authority, not 
i looking upon themselves as the proper Committee 
I to elaborate the exact process by which it shall be 
■ accomplished. I make the motion that the report 
j be agreed to. 

I Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I would modify 
j the motion hy saying simply that the prmciples be 

approved, and the report placed on the Calendar. 
1 Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I have to ob- 
j ject. I object to the House now committing itself 

without further examination. 



131 



Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. If there is ob- 
j< ction, it goes on the Calendar. 

The iPRESlDENT. The report goes on the Cal- 
endar without any motion to that effect. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I move, then, 
that it come up with the other question involving 
the same principle which now stands at the head 
of the Calendar. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I hope that 
will be done. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the mo- 
tion. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Permit 
me to read a rule of order : 

"All reports recommending or requiring any ac- 
tion or expression of opinion by the House shall be 
accompanied by a resolution for the action of the 
House thereon." 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I move to print 
the report just made, and hope it will be done. It is 
a matter of great importance, and while I favor it 
entirely if it can be done constitutionally, it is 
a very serious question. It is very late in the day 
now for us first to have discovered that we can lay 
aside the Constitution, and act by Canon on the sub- 
ject. I admit that the Constitution of the Church is 
very defective and very meagre ; but that is a ques- 
tion which ought to be seriously considered, and the 
members of the House ought to have an opportunity 
of loolcing into it individually before they act upon 
it. I hope the motion to print will be put. 

The motion to print the report was agreed to. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I rise for infor- 
mation. I understood that report was to go on the 
Calendar. I do not understand that any report, un- 
accompanied by a resolution, can go on the Calen- 
dar. It is important that committees may know 
when they bring in a report that unless they have a 
resolution attached to that report, it cannot go on the 
Calendar and come up again. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion was that it 
should go on the Calendar. That makes it a resolu- 
tion and brings it within the rule. 

MESSAGES FROM THE BISHOPS. 

A message (No. 25) was received from the House 
of Bishops returning to the House of Deputies, in 
accordance with its request, its Messages Nos, 17 
and 18. 

A message (No. 26) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

"Resolved, That this House concur in Message 
No. 21 from the House of Deputies nominating a 
Board of Trustees of the Missionary Bishops' Fund. " 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE ON CANONS. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I ask permission 
to present, at this time, a few short reports from the 
Committee on Canons, which were not ready when 
that Committee was called this morning. They will 
take no time now, as we simply wish to have them 
go down upon the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will receive the 
reports, if there be no objection. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh, from the 
Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
a proposed amendment of the Standing Order 
relating to Deputies of Missionary Jurisdictions, 
reported that they had considered the same, and 
were of opinion that it was inexpedient, and there- 
fore recommended the adoption of the following re- 
solution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
amendment to the Standing Order ' Of Deputies from 
Missionary Jurisdictions. ' " 



The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be placed 

on the Calendar. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh, from the Commit- 
tee on Canons, to whom was referred a proposed 
Canon "Of the Presiding Bishop," reported that, 
having considered the same, they were of opin- 
ion that its passage was inexpedient, and they 
therefore recommended the adoption of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
Canon ' Of the Presiding Bishop.' " 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be placed 
on the Calendar. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh, from the Commit- 
tee on Canons, to whom was referred Message No. 9 
of the House of Bishops, reported for adoption the 
following resolution : 

"Resolved, That this House concm^ in the amend- 
ment of Subsection 6, of Section?, of Canon 13, 
of Title I. , relating to Standing Committees of Mis- 
sionary Jurisdictions, proposed to this House in 
Message No. 9 from the House of Bishops. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution wiU be placed 
on the Ca,lendar. 

COURT OF APPEALS. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I also submit 
the following report : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was re- 
ferred a memorial from Rev. John A. Wilson and 
others, asking, among other things, for such legis- 
lation as shall result in the establishment of a 
court of final appeals, respectfully report that 
they are of opinion that this subject should rather 
be referred to and considered by the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution. They there- 
fore recommend the adoption of the following reso- 
lution : 

' ' Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the subject of 
a court of final appeals." 

In connection with this last report, Mr. President, 
I was instructed by the Committee to ask the adop- 
tion of this resolution now, and then to make a mo- 
tion that the matter be referred to the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution, so that no time 
may be lost in getting the matter before that Com- 
mittee, which the Committee on Canons consider to 
be the proper Committee to have charge of the sub- 
ject. I therefore move the passage of the resolu- 
tion presented by the Committee on Canons. 

The resolution was passed. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I now move 
that the subject be referred to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution. 

The motion was agreed to. 

NEW DIOCESES IN OHIO AND MICHIGAN. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I ask the action of the House, which may, I 
hope, give rise to no debate, upon the two resolu- 
tions sent up to the House of Bishops, which, at our 
request, have just been returned. Those resolutions 
have reference to the erection of new Dioceses in 
Michigan and Ohio. If the House will remember, 
it was a vote of concurrence with the House of 
Bishops in that matter. The House of Bishops took 
exception to the addition of a clause thereto. I will 
read one of the resolutions. The other corresponds 
totidem verbis : 

" Resolved, That this House concurs in the action 
communicated to it in Message No. 10 from the 
House of Bishops, consenting to and ratifying the 
formation of the proposed new Diocese within the 
Diocese of Michigan." 

So far, the House of Bishops think we ought to 
have gone, and no further. The remaining clause 
is; 



132 



"And do hereby recognize the union with the 
General Convention of the said new Diocese, so 
soon as it shall have been organized and named in 
Primary Convention, in compliance with Section 
4, Canon 6, Title III." 

The Committee on the Admission of New Dioceses 
thought it well to add that clause, because they were 
applied to in every one of these cases to fix some peri- 
od. It seemed to the Committee that the Canon on that 
subject fixes in general terms a period at which they 
would become connected with the General Conven- 
tion, and that that period was, when they were or- 
ganized, in Primary Convention, .and were named 
in that Convention. The House of Bishops, how- 
ever, think that this addition is an amendment to 
their resolution, and it is now before the House. 
The Committee are quite willing to recall that 
clause. It will merely involve the striking out of 
the last clause, 

The PRESIDENT. Do you make that motion ? 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. I make that 
motion. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the last 
clause in the resolution in each case be stricken out. 
The motion was agreed to. 
The resolutions, as amended, were agreed to. 

ASSISTANT SECRETARIES. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary wishes to 
make a statement to the House. 

The SECRETARY. I very earnestly beg the 
permission of the House to retain my Assistant 
Secretaries during the secret session. We have now 
twelve messages to go to the House of Bishops. "\Ye 
possibly may have testimonials to prepare. It is 
impossible for me to do the work of three gentle- 
men, and I am sure we can trust the honor of these 
gentlemen as well as we can the honor of any mem- 
bers of the House. They are clergymen of stand- 
ing and reputation, and I beg that they may be 
allowed to attend during the secret sessions for the 
furtherance of the business of the House. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that per- 
mission be given. 

The motion was agreed to unanimously. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois, and others called for the 
order of the day. 

The PRESIDENT. The hour having arrived for 
the order of the day, persons not members of the 
House will retire. 



THIRTEENTH DAY. 

Wednesday, October 31. 
Morning Prayer was begun by Rev. Henry S. 
Getz, of Pittsburgh, and concluded by Rev. Sterling 
Y. McMasters, d.d., ll.d., of Minnesota. The Lit- 
any was said by Rev. Isaac G. Hubbard, d.d., of New 
Hampshire. The Benediction was pronounced by 
Right Rev. J. P. B. Wilmer, d.d., Bishop of Louisi- 
ana. 

DISSOLUTION OP PASTORAL, CONNECTION. 

A message (No. 30) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the following 
resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
1. That Section 1, of Canon 4, of Title 11. be amend- 
ed by substituting m place of the words ' make ap- 
plication to the Bishop of the Diocese who shall, ' 
these words following, 'refer the matter to the 
Bishop of the Diocese who may ' ; 2. that Section 3 
of the same Canon be amended by inserting after 
the woi'ds .'until he shall retract his refusal,' these 
words following, ' and if he persist in his refusal it 
shall be the duty of the Bishop to dissolve the con- 
nection between the rector and vestry or congrega- 



tion ; 3. That Section 8 of the same Canon be 
amended to read, ' Section 8. This Canon shall not 
be obligatory upon any Diocese which has made or 
shall hereafter make provision by Canon upon this 
subject, or with whose laws or charter it may inter- 
fere ; 4. That Section 5 of the same Canon be and is 
hereby repealed, and that the remaining sections be 
numbered accordingly." 

DETACHMENT OF SANTEE RESERVATION. 

A message (No. 31) from the House of Bishops in- 
formed the House of Deputies that it has adopted the 
following preambles and resolutions : 

"Whereas, The Council of the Diocese of Nebras- 
ka, at the motion and with the consent of the Bish- 
op of Nebraska, has, by the necessary constitutional 
action, consented to the detachment of the Santee 
Indian reservation, situated in the Diocese of Ne- 
braska, for the purpose of transferring the same to 
the Missionary Jurisdiction of Niobrara ; and, 
whereas, it may be questioned whether such detach- 
ment be complete or lawful without the approval of 
the General Convention ; therefore 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concm-ring). 
That the consent of the General Convention is here- 
by given to the detachment of the said Santee Indian 
reservation from the Diocese of Nebraska and for 
its transfer to the Missionary Jurisdiction of Nio- 
brara." 

THE HYMNAL. 

A message (No. 32) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the passage by that House of the following 
resolutions : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That future editions of the Hymnal shall be printed 
so as to conform to the revised edition presented by 
the Joint Committee on the Hymnal, and that no 
other hymns be allowed in the public worship of the 
Church"^ except the Hymnal as thus revised, and such 
hymns and psalms as are now ordinarily bound up 
with the Book of Common Prayer, provided that 
any congregation may continue to use the editions 
cf the Hymnal heretofore published, mitil frnther 
action of the Convention. 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That the Joint Committee on the Hymnal, in pursu- 
ance of their own request, be discharged. 

"The House of Bishops informs the House of Depu- 
ties that it has also adopted the following resolu- 
tion : 

"Resolved, That the House of Bishops desires 
j here to place upon record their sense of the singular 
j zeal and assiduity of the Joint Committee in the 

laborious task confided to them for the sound dis- 
! cretion which they have exhibited, and of their pa- 
j tience and kindness in considering objections, and in 

endeavoring to meet the wishes of the Church, and 

that a copy of this resolution be communicated to 

the House of Deputies." 

The Chapel, having been cleared of all but Depu- 
j ties, the House resumed its secret session, and con- 
I tinned to sit with closed doors till the hour of ad- 
I journment, and at five o'clock p.m. adjourned till 

to-morrow at ten o'clock a.m. 

■ ^-"-^ 

FOURTEENTH DAY. 

Thursday, October 22. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel 
at ten A.M. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the 
Psalter by Rev. Daniel Henshaw, of Rhode Island. 
The Lessons were read by Rev. Charles Cotesworth 
Pinckney, of South Carolina. The Creed and 
Prayers were said by Rev. William C. Gray, of 
I Tennessee. The Benediction was pronounced by 



133 



Right Rev. William Henry Odenheimer, d.d., 
Bishop of New J ersey. 

COURT OF APPEALS. 

A message (No. 33) fi-om the House of Bishops 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

" Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That the following amendment of the Constitution 
be proposed in this General Convention, and made 
known to the several Diocesan Conventions, viz., 
that the sixth article of the Constitution be amend- 
ed by the addition of the following clause : 

"Appeal from the judgment of the Diocesan 
Court may be provided for by the General Con- 
vention." 

LESSONS FOR LENT. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York, submitted the 
following report : 

The Joint Committee to whom was assigned by 
the last General Convention the preparation of a 
Table of Lessons for the week-days of Lent, beg 
leave to report the accompanying table and resolu- 
tion : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the Table of Lessons reported by the Com- 
mittee be authorize^ for use till the next General 
Convention, provided the same shall be approved 
by the Bishop of each Diocese or jurisdiction re- 
spectively. 

"Resolved, That the Joint Committee be contin- 
ued in charge of this matter for its more thorough 
consideration, and to afford opportunity for such 
improvements as may be suggested by its actual 
use. 

" The Committee would add, that while engaged in 
the duty assigned to them, they have also prepared 
a Table of Lessons for the Ember and Rogation 
Days, regarding this, though not specified, as em- 
braced in the spirit and aim of the resolution under 
which they were appointed, and recommend the 
following resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Table of Lessons for the 
Ember and Rogation Days herewith presented by 
the Committee be authorized for use on the condi- 
tions, as the Table of Lessons for Lent. 

"ALEXANDER GREGG, 
J. FREEMAN YOUNG. 
M. A. DE WOLFE HOWE, 
T. W. COIT, 
ALFRED B. BEACH, 
E. E. BEARDSLEY, 
L G. HUBBARD, 
CHARLES R. HALE." 

A TABLE OF LESSONS FOR LENT. 

Ash-Wednesday. Morning: First Lesson, Isaiah 58 
to V. 13 ; Second Lesson, Mark 2, v. 13 to v. 
23. Evening: First Lesson, Jonah 3; Second 
Lesson, Heb. 12, v. 3 to v. 18. 

Thursday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 1 ; Second 
Lesson, J ohn 4, v. 5 to v. 27. Evening : First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 1 to v. 15; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 1 to v. 12. 

Friday. Morning: First Lesson, Job 2; Second 
Lesson, Luke 4, v. 14 to v. 33. Evening : First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 1, v. 15; Second Lesson, Reve- 
lation 1, V. 12. 

Saturday. Morning: First Lesson, Job 3; Second 
Lesson John 5, v. 16 to v. 33. ' Evening : First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 2 ; Second Lesson, Revelation 
2 to V. 12. 

First Sunday in Lent. Morning: First Lesson, Jere- 
miah 7; Second Lesson, Matthew 10. Evening: 
First Lesson, Jeremiah 9 ; Second Lesson, 
Ephesians 4. 



Monday. Morning: First Lesson: Job 6 to v. 14; 
Second Lesson, John 5, v. 30. Evening: First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 3 to v. 15; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 2, v. 12. 

Tuesday. Morning: First Lesson, Job 6, v. 14; Sec- 
ond Lesson, Matthew 11, v. 11. Evening: 
First Lesson, Ezekiel 3, v. 15; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 3 to v. 14. 

Wednesdav. Morning: First Lesson, Job 7; Second 
Lesson, Luke 12 to v. 22. Evening: First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 8 ; Second Lesson, Revelation 
3, V. 14. 

Thursday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 9 to v. 13 ; 
Second Lesson, Luke 12, v. 22 to v. 41. Even- 
ing: First Lesson, Ezekiel 9; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 4. 

Friday. Morning: First Lesson, Job 9, v. 13; Sec- 
ond Lesson, Luke 12, v 41. Evening: First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 11, v. 14 ; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 5. 

Saturday. Morning: First Lesson, Job 10; Second 
Lesson, Mark 4, v. 21 to v. 35. Evening: First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 12, v. 17 ; Second Lesson, Rev- 
elation 6 to V. 9. 

Second Sunday in Lent. Morning : First Lesson, 
Ezekiel 14 ; Second Lesson, Luke 10 to v. 25. 
Evening : First Lesson, Ezekiel 18 ; Second 
Lesson, Ephesians 5, 

Monday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 12 ; Second 
Lesson, Matthew 13, v. 36 to v. 53. Evening : 
First Lesson, Ezekiel 13 to v. 17 ; Second Les- 
son, Revelation 6, v. 9. 

Tuesday. Morning: First Lesson, Job 13 to v. 14; 
Second Lesson, John 6, v. 27 to v. 40. Even- 
ing : First Lesson, Ezekiel 13, v. 17; Second 
Lesson, Revelation 7, 

Wednesday. Morning: First Lesson, Job. 13, v. 14; 
Second Lesson, John 6, v. 40. Evening : First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 15 ; Second Lesson, Revelation 
8. 

Thursday. Morning: First Lesson, Job 14; See i d 
Lesson, Mark 7 to v. 24. Evening : First Les- 
son, Ezekiel 16, v. 44 to v. 55 ; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 9 to v. 13. 

Friday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 16 ; Second 
Lesson, Matthew 16 to v. 13. Evening: First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 16, v. 55 ; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 9, v. 13. 

Saturday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 17 ; Second 
Lesson, Matthew 16, v. 13. Evening : First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 17 to v. 11 ; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 10. 

Third Sunday in Lent. Morning : First Lesson, 
Ezekiel 20 to v. 27 ; Second Lesson, Mark 9 to 
V. 30. Evening : First Lesson, Ezekiel 20, v. 
27 ; Second Lesson, Ephesians 6. 

Monday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 19 ; Second 
Lesson, Matthew 18, v. 7 to v. 21. Evening : 
First Lesson, Ezekiel 17, v. 11 ; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 11. 

Tuesday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 21 ; Second 
Lesson, John 7, v. 14 to v. 32 ; Evening : First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 22, v. 12 to v. 23 ; Second Les- 
son, Revelation 12 to v. 9. 

Wednesday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 23 ; Se- 
cond Lesson, John 8, v. 12 to v. 31. Evening: 
First Lesson, Ezekiel 22, v. 23 ; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 12, v. 7. 

Thursday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 24 ; Second 
Lesson, John 8, v. 31 to v. 46. E vening : First 
Lesson, Ezeldel 24, v. 15 ; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 13 to v. 9. 
I Friday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 26 ; Second 
Lesson, John 10, v. 22. Evening : First Les- 
son, Ezekiel 26 ; Second Lesson, Revelation 
13, v. 9. 

j Saturday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 27 ; Second 
' Lesson, Luke 11 to v. 27. Evening : Ilrst Les- 



134 



son, Ezekiel 27 to v. 26 ; Second Lesson, Revela- 
tion 14 to Y. 12. 

Fourth Sunday in Lent. Morning: First Lesson, 
Micah 6 ; Second Lesson, Luke 19, v. 28. Even- 
ing : First Lesson, Habakkuk 3 ; Second Les- 
son, Philippians 1. 

Monday. Morning ; First Lesson, Job 28 ; Second 
Lesson, Luke 11, v. 27. Evening : First Les- 
son, Ezekiel 27, v. 26 ; Second Lesson, Revela- 
tion 14, V. 12. 

Tuesday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 29 ; Second 
Lesson, Luke 13, v. 22. Evening : First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 28 to v. 20 ; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 15. 

Wednesday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 30 to v. 
15 ; Second Lesson, Luke 15, v. 11. Evening: 
First Lesson, Ezekiel 31 ; Second Lesson, Rev- 
elation 16 to V. 12. 

Thursday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 30, v. 15 ; 
Second Lesson, Luke 17, v. 20. Evening : 
First Lesson, Ezekiel 32 to v. 17; Second Les- 
son, Revelation 16, v. 12. 

Friday. Morning: First Lesson, Job 31 to v. 24 ; Se- 
cond Lesson, Mark 10, v. 13 to v. 32. Even- 
ing : First Lesson, Ezekiel 33 to v. 21 ; Second 
Lesson, Revelation 18 to v. 15. 

Saturday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 31, v. 24 : 
Second Lesson, Mark 10, v. 32 to v. 46. Even- 
ing : First Lesson, Ezekiel 33, v. 21 ; Second 
Lesson, Revelation 18, v. 15. 

Fifth Simday in Lent. Morning : First Lesson, Hag- 
gai 2 to V. 10 : Second Lesson, Luke 21. Even- 
ing : First Lesson, Zechariah 13 ; Second 
Lesson, Philippians 3. 

Monday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 38 to v. 19 ; 
Second Lesson, Luke 19, v. 11 to v. 28. Even- 
ing : First Lesson, Ezekiel 34 to v. 17 ; Se- 
cond Lesson, Revelation 19. 

Tuesday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 38, v. 19 ; 
Second Lesson, John 12, v. 23 to v. 37. Even- 
ing : First Lesson, Ezekiel 34, v. 17 ; Second 
Lesson, Revelation 20. 

Wednesday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 39 ; Se- 
cond Lesson, Matthew 21, v. 23 to v. 33. Even- 
ing : First Lesson, Ezekiel 36, v. 16 to v. 33 ; 
Second Lesson, Revelation 21 to v. 15. 

Thursday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 40 ; Se- 
cond Lesson, Mark 12 to v. 13. Evening : 
First Lesson, Ezekiel 37 to v. 15 ; Second 
Lesson, Revelation 21, v. 15. 

Friday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 41 ; Second 
Lesson, Matthew 25 to v. 31. Evening : First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 37, v. 15 ; Second Lesson, Rev- 
elation 22 to V. 10. 

Saturday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 42 ; Second 
Lesson, Matthew 25, v. 31. Evening : First 
Lesson, Ezekiel 47 to v. 13 ; Second Lesson, 
Revelation 22, v. 10. 

Sixth Sunday in Lent. Morning : First Lesson, 
Daniel 9 ; Second Lesson, Matthew 26. Even- 
ing : First Lesson, Malachi 3 and 4 ; Second 
Lesson, Hebrews 5 to v. 11. 

Monday in Holy ¥7eek. Morning : First Lesson, 
Lamentations 1 to v. 15 ; Second Lesson, John 

14 to V. 15. Evening : First Lesson, Lamenta- 
tions 2, V. 13 ; Second Lesson, John 14, v. 15. 

Tuesday in Holy Week. Morning : First Lesson, 
Lamentations 3 to v. 34 ; Second Lesson, John 

15 to V. 17. Evening : First Lesson, Lamenta- 
tions 3, V. 34 ; Second Lesson, John 15, v. 14. 

Wednesday in Holy Week. Morning : First Les- 
son, Lamentations 4 to v. 21 ; Second Lesson, 
John 16 to V. 16. Evening : First Lesson, Ho- 
sea 12 ; Second Lesson, John 16, v. 16. 

Thursday in Holy Week. Morning : First Lesson. 
Hosea 13 to v. 16 ; Second Lesson, John 17, 
Evening : First Lesson, Hosea 14 ; Second 
Lfesson, John 13 to v. 36. 



Good Friday. Morning : First Lesson, Genesis 22 
to V. 20 ; Second Lesson, John 18. Evening : 
First Lesson, Isaiah 52, v. 13 and 53 ; Second 
Lesson, 1 Peter 2. 

Easter Eve. Morning : First Lesson, Zechariah 9 ; 
Second Lesson, Luke 23, v. 50. Evening : 
First Lesson, Hosea 5, v. 8 to 6, v. 4 ; Second 
Lesson, Romans 6 to v. 14. 

EMBER DAYS. 

In Advent. 

Wednesday. Morning : First Lesson, Isaiah 40 to 
V. 12 ; Second Lesson, John 1, v. 19 to v. 35. 
Evening : First Lesson, Isaiah 52 to v. 13 ; 
Second Lesson, 2 Corinthians 4. 

Friday. Morning : First Lesson, Jeremiah 23, v. 
16. Second Lesson, John 5, v. 33. Evening : 
First Lesson, Hosea 4 to v. 10. Second Les- 
son, 1 Thessalonians 5. 

Saturday. Morning : First Lesson, Malachi 3 42 
V. 16 ; Second Lesson, Matthew 24, v. to. 
Evening : First Lesson, Malachi 3, v. 16 and 
4 ; Second Lesson, Titus 2. 

In Lent. 

Wednesday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 7 ; Se- 
cond Lesson, Luke 12 to v. 22. Evening : 
First Lesson, Ezekiel 8 : Second Lesson, Rev- 
elation 3, V. 14. 

Friday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 9, v. 13 ; 
"Second Lesson, Luke 12, v. 41. Evening : 
First Lesson, Ezekiel 11, v. 14 ; Second Les- 
son, Revelation 5. 

Saturday. Morning : First Lesson, Job 10 ; Se- 
cond Lesson, Mark 4, v. 21 to v. 35. Even- 
ing : First Lesson, Ezekiel 12, v. 17 ; Second 
Lesson, Revelation 6 to v. 9. 

Li Whitsun Week. 

Wednesday. Morning: First Lesson, Deuteronomy 
18, V. 15; Second Lesson, Matthew 10, v. 16. 
Evening : First Lesson, 1 Kings 19 ; Second 
Lesson, 1 Cor. 1, v. 18. 

Friday. Morning : First Lesson, 2 Kings 2 to v. 23; 
Second Lesson, John 15, v. 16. Evening : 
First Lesson, Isaiah 6 to v. 19 ; Second Les- 
son, 1 Cor. 2. 

Saturday. Morning : First Lesson, Isaiah 61 ; Sec- 
ond Lesson, John 16, to v. 15. Evening : 
First Lesson, Joel 2, v. 15 ; Second Lesson, 1 
Cor. 12 to V. 12. 

In Autumn. 

Wednesday. Morning : First Lesson, Ezekiel 2; 
Second Lesson, Acts 1 to v. 10. Evening : 
First Lesson, Ezekiel 3 to v. 22 ; Second Les- 
son, 2 Corinthians 5, v. 10. 

Fridav. Morning : First Lesson, Ezekiel 13 to v. 
17 ; Second Lesson, Acts 4 to v. 13. Evening : 
First Lesson, Ezekiel 14 to v. 12 ; Second Les- 
son, Ephesians 4, v. 7 to v. 17. 

Saturday. Morning : First Lesson, Ezekiel 33 to v. 
10 ; Second Lesson, Acts 4, v. 13 to v. 34. 
Evening : First Lesson, Ezekiel 34 to v. 17 ; 
Second Lesson, Hebrews 13, v. 7 to v. 22. 

Rogation Days. 

Monday. Morning : First Lesson, Deuteronomy 8; 
Second Lesson, Matthew 6, v. 24. Evening : 
First Lesson, Deuteronomy 28 to v. 14 ; Sec- 
ond Lesson, 2 Corinthians 5 to v. 10. 

Tuesday. Morning : First Lesson, 1 Kings 8, v. 22 
to V. 44 ; Second Lesson, Luke 11 to v. 14. 
Evening : First Lesson, Isaiah 64 ; Second 
Lesson, James 1 to v. 18. 

Wednesday, Morning : First Lesson, Jeremiah 14; 
Second Lesson, John 6, v, 5 to v. 15. Evening : 



135 



First Lesson, Ezeldel 14, v. 12 ; Second Les- 
son, J ames 5. 
The report was placed on the Calendar, 

DIVISION OF TEXAS. 

A message (No. 84) was received from the House 
of Bishops, announcing the passage by that House 
of the following preamble and resolution : 

"Whereas, The Diocese of Texas, by constitu- 
tional action of the Bishop and Convention, has, for 
urgent and sufficient reasons, declared its desire to 
establish its Noi'thern and Western limits on the 
northern lines of Lampasas, Coryell, MacLennaii, 
Limestone, Freestone, Anderson, Smith, Gregg, 
and Marion Counties ; and on the Western lines of 
Matagorda, Wharton, Colorado, Fayette, Bastrop, 
Travis, Burnett, and Lampasas Counties ; and 

"Whereas, This Convention is sufficiently as- 
sured of the consent of the parishes lying north and 
west of the aforesaid limits to the proposed limita- 
tion to the Diocese. _ 

" Resolved (the Rouse of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), Tiiat the General Convention here- 
by signifies its consent and agreement to the limita- 
tion of the Diocese of Texas, as hereinbefore de- 
scribed, and that so much and no more of the State 
of Texas as lies within the aforesaid limits is to be 
regarded and known as the Diocese of Texas." 

BOARD OF MISSIONS, 1874-1877. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts, from the 
Committee appointed to nominate a Board of Mis- 
sions, reported the following list of names to consti- 
tute the Board of Missions for the ensuing three 
years, viz. : 

Alabama. — Clerical — Rev. John M. Banister, 

D. D. ; Rev. John Fulton, d.d. Lay — N. H. R. Daw- 
son; C. H. Stickney. 

Albany. — Clerical — Rev. H. W. Beers, d.d. ; Rev. 
Wm. Payne, d.d.; Rev. J. H, H. Brown, d.d.; Rev. 

E. K Potter, d.d., ll.d. ; Rev. J. H. Hopkins, d.d.; 
Rev. Theo. Ba^)Cock, d.d. ; Rev. J. I. Tncker, d.d. ; 
Rev. J. L. Reese; Rev. F. Harrison; Rev. W. W. 
Battershall; Rev. John Townsend. Lay — James 
Forsyth; Orlando Meads, ll.d.; W. A. Wood; Ly- 
man Tremain. 

Arkansas. — Clerical — Rev. C. S. Hedges, d.d.; 
Rev. R. W. Trimble ; Rev. C. A. Bruce. Lay— John 
Wassell. 

California. — Clerical — Rev. J. Lloyd Breck, 
D.D. ; Rev. B. Akerly, d.d. ; Rev. H. D". Lathrop, 
D.D. Lay— Joseph Boston; Edward Stanley; J. 
Watson Webb. 

Central New Yobk— Clerical— Rqy. A. B. 
Beach, d.d.; Rev. J. Brainerd, d.d. ; Rev. A. B, 
Goodrich, d.d. ; Rev. G. H. McKnlght, d.d. : Rev. J. 
M. Clarke, d.d. ; Rev. W. T. Gibson, d.d. ; Rev. E. M. 
Van Deusen, d.d. ; Rev. Walter Ayrault, d.d. ; Rev. 
W. A. Hitchcock; Rev. L. R. Brewer; Rev. Hugh 
L. M. Clarke; Rev. W. D'Orville Doty; Rev. R. G. 
Quennell. Lay— 3. W. Clarke; George C. McWhor- 
ter; George F. Comstock; H. O. Moss; C. A. Sher- 
man. 

CONrTECTiCUT. — Clerical — Rev. J. L. Clark, d.d.; 
Rev. R. A, Hallam, d.d.; Rev. W. H. Lewis, d.d.; 
Rev. S. D. Denison, d.d.; Rev. E. E. Beardsley, 
D.D., LL.D.; Rev. T. R. Pynchon, d.d.; Rev. W. E. 
Vibbert; Rev. Edwin Har wood, d.d.; Rev. Henry 
W. Nelson; Rev. George S. Maliory, d.d.: Rev. M. 
Meier Smith, d.d.; Rev. Walter Mitchell ; Rev. L. B. 
Baldwin; Rev. W. Tatlock; Rev. N. S. Richardson, 
D.D. ; Rev. Samuel H. Giesy, d.d. ; Rev. F. Brath- 
waite; Rev. John Binney. Lay—B. H. Hunting- 
ton; John C. Hoilister; John D. Ferguson; Benja- 
min Stark; E. N. Shelfcon; J. Godfrey; Andrew S. 
Kinston; Daniel W. Denison. 



Delaware. — Clerical— 'Rev. J. B. Clemson, d.d. 5 
Rev. J. Leighton McKim; Rev. W. J. Frost, d.d.; 
Rev. T. G. Littell. Lai/— S. M. Curtis; Franklin 
Fell ; Victor Dupont. 

Easton. — Clerical — Rev. John Crosdale, d.d. ; 
Rev. Thcvodore P. Barber; Rev. E. F. Dasliill; Rev. 
Joim O. Barton ; Rev. Robert Wilson. Lay — George 
R. Goldsborough ; William S. Walker; I. L. Adkins, 

M.D. 

Florida. — Clerical— Rev. J. J. Scott, d.d., ll.d. ; 
Rev. O. P. Thackara. La?/— Robert Walker; I. I. 
Daniels. 

Georgia.— CZerrcaZ— Rev. William C. Williams, 
D.D. ; Rev. Samuel Benedict, d.d. ; Rev. William H. 
Clarke. Lay — H. H. Steiner; W. W. Montgomery; 
L. N. Whittle. 

Illinois. — Clerical — Rev. Clinton Locke, d.d. ; 
Rev. Edward Sullivan, d.d.; Rev. T. N. Morrison; 
Rev. F. M. Gregg ; Rev. S. Corbett, d.d. ; Rev. C. 
S. Abbott ; Rev. D. F. Warren, d.d. Lay—Jj. B. 
Dtis ; E. H. Sheldon ; Emery Cobb ; C. T. Bowen. 

iNBiAisiA. — Clerical — Rev. George J. MagiU ; 
Rev. Yv^m. Wilson ; Rev. E. R. Bishop ; Rev. A. 
Mackie. Lay — Geo. C. Day ; Jno. S. Irwin, 

Iowa. — Clerical — Rev. Chas. H. Seymour ; Rev. 
R. C. Mcllwain ; Rev. J. C. Goodhue ;'Rev. J. Trim- 
ble. Lay — George Greene ; J. L. Daymude ; John 
Hodgdon ; James Armstrong ; R. T. Bowen. 

Kansas. — Clerical — Rev. C. Reynolds, d.d. ; Rev, 
John Bakewell. Lay— A. G, Otis; E, M. Bartho- 
low. 

Kentucky. — Clerical — Rev. James Craik, d.d. ; 
Rev. J. N. Norton, d.d. ; Rev. J. S. Shipman; Rev. 
W. M. Pettis; Rev, E. T. Perkins, d.d. Lay— S. 

B. Churchill; J. W. Stevenson; Wm. Cornwall; 
W. F. Bullock. 

Long Island— CZeHcaZ— Rev. C. H. Hall, d.d. ; 
Rev. S. M. Haskins, d.d. ; Rev. N. H. Schenck, 

D. D. ; Rev. D. V. M. Johnson, d.d. ; Rev. J. A. 
Paddock, d.d. ; Rev. Y\''. A. Snively ; Rev. W. H. 
Moore ; Rev. G. W. Smith ; Rev. N. Maynard ; Rev. 

E. D. Cooper ; Rev. R. T, Pearson ; Rev. H. M. 
Beane, d.d. ; Rev. W. S. Chadwell ; Rev. R. B. 
Duane, d.d. ; Rev. J. Carpejiter Smith, d.d. Lay 
—Geo. A. Jarvis ; Alex. V. Blake : H. E. Pierre- 
pont; Vfm. G. Low; Jno. T. Walker; Ed- 
ward Todd : A. W, Benson ; W. P. Clyde ; S. D. 

C. Van Bokkeien ; Chas. A, Townsend ; Chas. R. 
Marvin ; Jno. A. King ; Britton Richardson ; P. C. 
Clark ; C. L. Twing. 

Louisiana, — Clerical— Rev. W, P. Adams ; Rev, 
W, T. D. Dalzell, d.d. : Rev. J. Philson ; Rev. J. F. 
Girault ; Rev. S. S. Harris. Lay — P. L. Cox. 

MAmE.— Clerical— Rev. Samuel Upjohn ; Rev. 

C. S. Leffingwell ; Rev, W, H, Washburn; Rev. 
J, H. Ward ; Rev. John Gregson. Lay — James 
Bridge ; Robert H. Gardiner ; J . H. McMuUen ; 
G. E. B. Jackson. 

Massachusetts. — Clerical — Rev. A. H. Vinton, 

D. D. ; Rev. Alex. Burgess, d.d. ; Rev. C. L. Hutch- 
ins ; Rev, F. Wharton, d.d., ll.d,; Rev. Percy 
Browne; Rev. J. I. T. Coolidge, d.d.; Rev. Phillips 
Brooks, D.D. ; Rev. W, R. Huntington, d.d. ; Rev. 
Henry Burroughs; Rev. Thos. F. Fales; Rev. Henry 

F. Allen; Rev. Roger S. Howard, d.d.; Rev. Robt. 
B. Van Kleeck, d.d. Lay— Amos A. Lawrence ; 
Geo. C. Shat tuck, M.D. ; Joseph Story Fay; Joseph 

j Burnett ; Jno. B. Stebbins ; Nathan Matthews ; E. 
i R. Mudge. 

i Mab.yl.ant>.— Clerical— Rev. Geo. Leeds, d.d, ; 

Rev. J. S. B. Hodges, d.d.; Rev. C. W. Rankin; 

Rev. J. E, Grammer, d.d. ; Rev, J, V, Lewis, d.d. : 
1 Rev. C. K. Nelson, d.d.; Rev. H. R. Scott; Rev. 

T. U, Dudley, d,d.; Rev. A. M. Randolph; Rev, 



1S6 



Meyer Lewin, d.d. ; Rev. Geo. A. Leakin ; Rev. W, 
T. Watkins ; Rev. J. H. Elliot, d.d. ; Rev. W. G. 
Jackson, d.d.; Rev. Thomas A. Starkey, d.d.; Rev. 
F. James ; Rev. A. B. Atkins, d.d. Lay—Q. G. 
Wyman ; L. Thompson ; Bernard Carter ; Wm. 
Woadward ; H. Easton ; A. H. Dillon, Jr. ; Henry 
M. Bash ; Robt. M. Proud. 

Michigan. — Clerical — Rev, T. C. Pitkin, d.d.; 
Rev. G. D. Gillespie; Rev. J. T. Magrath; Rev. Geo. 
Worthington; Rev. Jno. W. Brown; Rev. Saml. 
Earp; Rev. B. F. Fleetwood; Rev. I. T. Conover; 
Rev. J. R. Bancroft. Lay— P. E. Demill; H. P. Bald- 
win; C. C. Trowbridge; Henry Hayden; W. R. 
Shelby; F. A. Gorham; T. P. Sheldon; N. P. Love- 
ridge; R. A. Berry. 

Minnesota. — Clerical — Rev. S. Y. McMasters, 
D.D., LL.D. ; Rev. D. B. Knickerbacker, d.d. ; Rev. A. 
B. Paterson; Rev. E. S. Thomas; Rev. G. W. Wat- 
son, D.D. Lay — E. T. Wilder; Isaac Atwater; W. 
B. Jackson; S. C. Bradin. 

Mississippi. — Clerical — Rev. W^. C. Crane, d.d. ; 
Rev. W. K. Douglas; Rev. Henry Sansom, d.d. ; 
Rev. J. F. Pickett. Z/aiy— Thomas E. B. Peques; R. 
S. Stith; W. T. Balfour. 

Missouri. — Clerical — Rev. M. Schuyler, d.d. ; 
Rev. James Runcie, d.d.; Rev. Samuel Ringold; 
Rev. E. F. Berklev, d.T). Lay — W. F. Ferguson; 
George H. Gill; John T. Douglas; Silas Bent. 

Nebraska. — Clerical — Rev. A. C. Garrett, d.d; 
Rev. J. McNamara, d.d. Lay — J. M. Woolworth; 
J. Metcalf. 

New Jersey. — Clerical — Rev. R. M. Aber- 
crombie, d.d. ; Rev. Alfred Stubbs, d.d. ; Rev. 
Daniel C. Weston, d.d. ; Rev. Wm. A. Matson, 
D.D. ; Rev. E. M, Rodman; Rev. S. A. Clark, d.d.; 
Rev. G. M. Hill, d.d. ; Rev. Anthony Schuyler, d.d. ; 
Rev. F. C. Putnam; Rev. J. N. Stansbury; Rev. 
W. G. Farrington, d.d. ; Rev. S. M. Rice, d.d. ; Rev. 
R, N. Merritt; Rev. W. H. Harison, d.d.; Rev. J. 
F. Garrison; Rev. N. Petitt; Rev. W. H. Lewis, Jr. ; 
Rev. E. B. Boggs, d.d. ; Rev. Horace S, Bishop; Rev. 
A. R. Walker; Rev. Samuel Hall. Lay— 3. C. 
Garthwaite ; Charles E. Milnor ; Geo, C. Hance ; 
Samuel Tiffany; Henry Meigs; Jas. T. Mackie; A. 
Mills; J. H. Pugh, m.d. ; J. H. Thompson. 

New Hampshire. — Clerical — Rev. J. H, Fames, 
D.D. ; Rev. H. A. Coit, d.d. ; Rev. Isaac G. Hubbard, 
D.D. ; Rev. Lorenzo Sears ; Rev. J. B. Goodrich ; 
Rev. James Haughton. Lay — Simeon Ide ; Asa 
P. Cate ; Franklin Low. 

New York. — Clerical — Rev. B. I. Haight, d.d., 
LL.D. ; Rev. J. Mulchahey, d.d. ; Rev. W. F. Morgan, 
d.d. ; Rev. A. B. Beach,' d.d.; Rev. R. S. Howland, 
D.D. ; Rev. S. H. Tyng, d.d. ; Rev. Samuel Cooke, d.d. ; 
Rev. Thomas Gallaudet, d.d. ; Rev. C. E. Swope, 
D.D. ; Rev. J. A. Gallaher; Rev. Morgan Dix, d.d.; 
Rev. H. Dyer, d.d. ; Rev. E. A. Washburn, d.d. ; 
Rev. John Cotton Smith, d.d. ; Rev, George J, Geer, 
D.D. ; Rev. F. E. Lawrence, d.d. ; Rev. C, B. Smith; 
Rev. G. B. Draper, d.d. ; Rev. I. H. Tuttle, d.d. ; Rev. 
W. D. Walker; Rev. T. A. Eaton, d.d. ; Rev. George 
H. Houghton, d.d.; Rev. I. I. Helm, d.d.; Rev. P. 
K. Cady, d.d.; Rev. Clarence Buel; Rev. J. C. Ec- 
cleston; Rev. H, C, Potter, d,d.; Rev. A. T. Twing, 
D.D. ; Rev. C. R. Duffie, d.d.; Kev. J. H. Rylance, 
D.D.; Rev. C. F. Hoffman; Rev. W. H. D. Grannis; 
Rev. F. B. Van Kleeck; Rev. S. HoUingsworth, d.d. ; 
Rev. D. F. Banks; Rev. W. H. Benjamin ; Rev. R. C. 
Rogers; Rev. O. Applegate; Rev. H. B. Hitchings; 
Rev. Joshua Morsell, d.d, ; Rev. Hugh Miller 
Thompson, d.d. ; Rev. R. Heber Newton. 
Lay — Lewis Curtiss ; T. P. Cummings ; J . J, Cisco ; 
U. P, Lee; W, H. Kitchen; George M. Miller; 
Cyrus Curtiss ; George N. Titus ; F. S. Watson ; N. 
F, Palmer; Stewart Brown ; Hamilton Fish, ll.d. ; 



George D. Morgan; R. H. Macurdy ; J. J. Astor; 
Jacob Reese; G. J. Barlow; Adam Norrie; W. H. 
Aspinwall ; S. B. Ruggles, ll.d. ; W. A. Davles ; 
David J. Ely; Lloyd W. Wells; John W. Mitchell; 
Tlieodosius Bartow; J. T, Davies; C. C. Haight; 
George C, Collins; Cambridge Livingston; W", A. 
Smith ; H. Camman ; Elbridge T. Gerry. 

North CAROLiNA.—CZeHcaZ — Rev. J. B. Cheshire, 
D.D. ; Rev. Aldert Smedes, D.D. ; Rev. A. A. Wat- 
son, D.D. ; Rev. D. H. Buel. Lay—W. H. Battle. 
LL.D.; Kemp P. Battle; R, H, Smith; A. J, De 
Rossett, M.Dr 

Ohio, — Clerical — Rev. Louis Ba,rton, d.d. ; Rev. 
W. B. Bodine; Rev. Wm. McLaren; Rev. Thos. B. 
Wells; Rev. W. W. Farr; Rev. Leighton Coleman; 
Rev. Erastus Burr, d.d.; Rev. Thos. S. Yocum; 
Rev. John Ufford, d.d.; Rev. Rufus W. Clark; 
Rev. H. H. Morrell. Lay—W. A. Boardman; I. H. 
Deveraux ; Kent Jarvis ; C. Delano ; A. H. Moss ; 
Wager Swayne ; V. B. Horton ; Larz. Anderson ; 
John W. Andrews ; W. B. Marfield. 

Pennsylvania. — Clerical— V\:Qy. Benjamin Wat- 
son, D.D. ; Rev. E. A. Hoffman, d.d. ; Rev. J, A, 
Harris ; Rev. J. W. Claxton, d.d. ; Rev. William 
Rudder, d.d. ; Rev. John Bolton ; Rev. E. A. Fog- 
go, D.D. ; Rev. R. B. Claxton, d.d. ; Rev. James 
Saul, D.D. ; Rev. D. S. Miller, d.d. ; Rev. T. F. 
Davies, d.d. ; Rev. T. A. Jaggar, d.d. ; Rev. Charles 
D. Cooper ; Rev. Theodore S. Rumney, d.d. ; Rev. 
J. H. Eccleston, d.d. ; Rev. C. G. Currie ; Rev. H. P. 
Hay, D.D.; Rev. D. C. Millett, d.d.; Rev. E. Y. Bu- 
chanan, D.D. ; Rev. Charles L. Fisher. Lay — Wm. 
Welsh ; Orlando Crease ; G. L. Harrison ; John D. 
Taylor ; James S. Whitney ; G. W. Hunter ; Lem- 
uel Coffin. 

Central Pennsylvania.— CZeWcaZ— Rev. Cort- 
landt Whitehead ; Rev. A. A. Marple; Rev. R.J. 
Keeling, d.d.; Rev. W. Paret, d.d.- Rev. A. M. 
Able; Rev. C. E. Mcllvaine; Rev. Charles Breck, 
D.D.; Rev. W. P. Orrick: Rev. W. C. Leverett; 
Rev. T. C. Caskey; Rev. M. A. Tolman; Rev. H. L. 
Jones. Lai/— M. Schall; R. A. Lamberton; Peter 
Baldy, Jr.; H. S. Goodwin; C. R. Potts; A. Rick- 
etts; J. W. Gurnsey; H. Packer; Robert Packer. 

Pittsburgh. — Clerical — Rev. William Preston, 
D.D. ; Rev. John Scarborough, d.d. ; Rev. Henry 
Purdon ; Rev. Henry S. Getz ; Rev. W. H. Mills ; 
Rev. Richards. Smith; Rev. H. W. Spaulding, d.d. ; 
Rev. G. C. Rafter. Lay— Thomas M. Howe ; J. H. 
Shoenberger ; B. B. Vincent ; Hill Burgwin ; Ed- 
ward S. Golden ; Felix R. Brunot. 

Rhode Island. — Clerical— Rev. H. Wateman, 
D.D. ; Rev. Isaac P. White, d.d. ; Rev. C. A. L. Rich- 
ards; Rev. DanieL Henshaw ; Rev. C. H, Wheeler; 
Rev. E. H. Porter; Rev. S. H. Webb; Rev. S. D. 
Seymour; Rev. G. L. Locke. Lay—R. H. Ives; C. 
B. Farnsworth; J. DeW. Perry; John H, Steiness. 

South Carolina. — Clerical — Rev. A. Toomer 
Porter; Rev. C. C. Pinckney; Rev. J, D. McCul- 
lough; Rev. E. Capers. Lay—R. W. Shand; G. C. 
Memminger; J. B. Palmer. 

Tennessee. — Clerical— Rev. George White, d.d. ; 
Rev. W. C. Gray; Rev. George Beckett. Lay — G. 
R. Fairbank; Jacob Thompson; W. H. Stevens. 

Texas.— CZeHcaZ— Rev. B. A. Rogers; Rev. W, 
R, Richardson; Rev, S, M. Bird; Rev. L. P. Rucker. 
Lay — J. H. Raymond; W. J. Hutchins; George W, 
Jackson, 

Vermont,— CZeHcaZ— Rev. A. H, Bailey, d,d. ; 
Rev. Malcolm Douglass, d.d. ; Rev. Charles C. 
Harris ; Rev. J. I. BHss ; Rev. C. T. Ogden. ; Rev. 
N. F. Putnam. Lay— Victor Atwood; Thomas H. 
Canfield. 



13? 



VmaimA.— Clerical— Rev. J. H. D. Wingfield, 
D.D.; Rev. W. H. Meade; Rev. G. H. Norton, d.d. ; 
Rev. C. Mimiigrode, d.d.; Rev. Joshua Peterkin, 
D.D. ; Rev. J. S. Hanckel; Rev. O. S. Barten, d.d.; 
Rev. W. L. Hyland; Rev. R. H. McKim; Rev. T. 
A. Tidbali; Rev. J. S. Lindsav; Rev. Theodore M. 
Carson. Lay— J). N. Walker; 1). G. Gordon, m.d. ; 
W. N. Holladay; B. P. Loyal; Hugh W. Sheffey; 
Tazewell Taylor; N. H. Massie. 

Western New Yob,k.— Clerical— 'Rev. W. Shel- 
ton, D.D. ; Rev. H. Anstice ; Rev. J. Rankine, d.d, ; 
Rev. D. C. Mann; Rev. W. S. Perry, d.d.; Rev. 
Isaac Foote, d.d. ; Rev. J. M. Henderson ; Rev, M. 
Van Renselaer, d.d., ll.d, Lay—G. B. Worthing- 
ton ; S. G. Cornell ; D. W. Parshall ; T. C. Mont- 
gomery ; W. H, Walker; W. W, Stacey; George 
W, Cuyler, 

Wisconsin.— CZericaZ— Rev. W. B. Ashley, d.d. ; 
Rev. D. Keene, d.d.; Rev. Lewis A. Kemper, d.d.; 
Rev. Edward P. Wright, d.d. ; Rev. James De 
Koven,.D.D. ; Rev. A. D. Cole, d.d.; Rev. John Wil- 
kinson. Lay— J. Bod well Doe ; James H. Hoes ; Den- 
nison Worthington, 

Colorado.— CZeHcaZ— Rev. P. V. Finch. Lay— 
J. H. McMurdy. 

Da-kota— Clerical— ReY. M. Hoyt, d.d. Lay— J. 
L. Pennington. 

Montana— Clerical— Rev. A. M. Kirby. Lay— 
Warren Hussey. 

If-EVABA.— Clerical— Rev. S. P. Kelly. Lay—W. 
A. M. Van Bolikelen. 

Niobrara.— C^eWcaZ— Rev. S. D. Hinman; Rev. 
J. W. Cook. 

Oregon.— OZeWcaZ— Rev. C. R. Bonnell; Rev. L. 
H. WeUs. 

On motion of Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachu- 
setts, it was 

"Resolved, That the above-named persons be 
elected, members of the Board of Missions, and that 
notice thereof be sent to the House of Bishops. " 

BISHOP OF ILLINOIS. 

The Chapel having been cleared of all persons 
but members of the House, and the Secretary and 
his assistants, the House proceeded in secret session 
to consider the resolution reported by the Com- 
mittee on the Consecration of Bishops, approving 
the testimonials of Rev. George F. Seymour, d.d., 
as Bishop-elect of Illinois, and on the adoption 
thereof the vote is understood to have been as 
follows : 

Clerical Vote. — Forty-one Dioceses represented. 

^i/e.— Albany, California, Central New York, 
Easton, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Long 
Island, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 
Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, 
Western New York, Wisconsin— 19. 

Nay. — Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylva- 
nia, Virginia — 10. 

Divided. — Alabama, Arkansas, Central Pennsyl- 
vania, Massachusefcts, Nebraska, New Jersey, North 
Carolina, Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Texas— 12. 

Lay Vote.- Dioceses represented, 40. 

Aye. — Alabama, Albany, Illinois, Maine, Mary- 
land, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, 
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Vermont 
—13. 

iVa^.— California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Long Island, 
Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Western 
New York, Wisconsin— 18. 



Divided.— Ceia.trsl New York, Central Pennsyl- 
vania, Connecticut, Easton, Louisiana, Massachu- 
setts, Pittsburgh, Tennessee, Texas— 9. 

The vote in detail is as follows : 
clerical vote. 

Alabama. — Rev. Dr. Stringfellow and Rev. Dr. 
Fulton, aye ; Rev. Dr. Banister and Rev. Mr. 
Cobbs, nay. 

Albany.— R.QY. Dr. Payne, Rev. Dr. Tucker, Rev. 
Dr. Beers, and Rev. Dr. Brown, aye. 

Arkansas. — Rev. Mr. Bruce, aye ; Rev. Mr. 
Trimble, nay. 

California. — Rev. Mr. Chetwood, Rev. Mr. Eas- 
ton, and Rev. Mr. Githens, aye ; Rev. Mr. Bird- 
sail, nay. 

Central New York.—ReY. Dr. Van Deusen, Rev. 
Dr. Ayrault, and Rev. Mr. Hitchcock, aye ; Rev. 
Dr. Wilson, nay. 

Central Pennsylvania.— R&v. Dr. Paret and Rev. 
Dr. Breck, aye ; Rev. Mr. Marple and Rev. Mr. 
Leverett, nay. 

Connecticut. — Rev. Dr. Mead, Rev. Dr. Beards- 
ley, Rev. Dr. Clark, and Rev. Mr. Johnson, nay. 

Delaware. — Rev. Mr. Spencer, aye; Rev. Mr. 
Hotchkin, Rev. Mr. Stone, and Rev. Mr. Douglass, 
nay. 

Easton. — Rev. Dr. Stearns, Rev. Dr. Crosdale, and 
Rev. Dr. Fulton, aye; Rev. Mr. Barber, nay. 

Florida..— Rqy. Dr. Scott, aye; Rev. Mr. Thacka- 
ra, Rev. Dr. Camp, and Rev. Mr. Mumford, nay. 

Georgia. — Rev. Mr. Rees, Rev. Dr. Williams, and 
Rev. Dr. Benedict, aye; Rev. Mr. Clarke, nay. 

Illinois. — Rev. Dr. Chase, Rev. Dr. Locke, and 
Rev. Dr. Corbett, aye ; Rev. Dr. Sullivan, nay. 

Indiana. — Rev. Mr. Roberts, Rev. Mr. Magill, 
and Rev. Mr. Dunham, aye ; Rev. Dr. Wakefield, 
nay. 

Iowa. — Rev. Mr. Mcllwain, Rev. Mr, Goodhue, 
and Rev. Mr. Seymour, aye ; Rev. Mr. Trimble, 
nay. 

Kansas. — Rev, Dr, Reynolds, Rev. Mr. Bakewell, 
Rev. Mr. Dunn, and Rev. Mr. Beatty, nay. 

Kentucky.— Rev. Dr. Craik, Rev. Dr. Perkins, 
Rev. Mr. Shipman, and Rev. Mr. Pettis, nay. 

Long Island. — Rev. Dr. Plall, Rev. Dr. Diller, 
and Rev. Dr. Haskins, aye ; Rev. Dr. Schenck, nay. 

Louisiana. — Rev. Mr. Harris, aye; Rev. Mr. 
Adams, Rev. Mr. Girault, and Rev. Dr. Dalzell, 
nay. 

Maine. — Rev. Mr. Leffingwell, Rev. Mr. Upjohn, 
Rev. Mr. W ard, and Rev. Dr. Pise, aye. 
I Maryland. — Rev. Dr. Leeds, aye; Rev, Dr, Hut- 
j ton, Rev. Dr. Lewin, and Rev. Dr. Dudley, nay. 
I Massachusetts. — Rev. Dr. Burgess and Rev. Dr. 
! Lambert, aye; Rev. Dr. Vinton and Rev. Dr. Hun- 
I tington, nay. 

I Michigan. — Rev. Mr. Gillespie, Rev. Mr. Brown, 
j Rev. Mr. Earp, and Rev. Mr. Worthington, aye. 

Minnesota. — Rev. Dr. Kidney and Rev. Dr. 
1 Knickerbacker, aye ; Rev. Dr. McMasters, nay. 
I Mississippi. — Rev. Dr. Crane, Ptcv. Dr. Sansom, 
I and Rev. Mr. Douglas, aye; Rev. Mr. Marks, nay. 
I Missouri. — Rev. Dr. Runcie, Rev, Dr. Schuyler, 

and Rev, Dr. Berkley, aye ; Rev, Mr, Jennings, 

nay. 

Nebraska. — Rev. Dr, Garrett and Rev, Mr. 
I Shaw, aye ; Rev. Mr. Goodale, and Rev. Mr. Talbot, 
1 nay. 



138 



New Hampshire. — Rev. Dr. Coit, Rev. Dr. Her- 
rick, and Rev. Mr. Haughton, a,ye ; Rev. Dr. Hub- 
bard, nay. 

New Jersey. — Rev. Dr. Farrington and Rev. Dr. 
Abercrombie, aye ; Rev. Dr. Clark and Rev. Mr. 
Garrison, nay. 

New York.—Rey. Dr. Beach, Rev. Dr. Cady, and 
Rev. Dr. Geer, aye ; Rev. Dr. Cooke, nay. 

North Carolina. — Rev. Dr. Wa,tson and Rev. 
Dr. Smedes, aye ; Rev. Dr. Buxton, and Rev. Mr. 
Huske, nay. 

Ohio. — Rev. Mr. Jewett, aye ; Rev. Dr. Burr, 
Rev. Dr. Boyd, and Rev. Mr. Farr, nay. 

Pennsylvania. — Rev. Dr. Davies, aye ; Rev. Dr. 
Rudder and Rev. Mr. Bolton, nay. 

Pittsburgh. — Rev. Dr. Scarborough and Rev. Dr. 
Spalding, aye ; Rev. Mr. Getz and Rev. Mr. Smith, 
nay. 

Rhode Island. — Rev. Mr. Seymour and Rev. Mr. 
Goodwin, aye; Rev. Mr. Henshaw and Rev. Mr. 
Locke, nay. 

South Carolina. — Rev. Mr. Porter and Rev. Mr. 
McCoUough, aye; Rev. Mr. Pinckney and Rev. Dr. 
Elliott, nay. 

Tennessee. — Rev. Dr. Harrison and Rev. Mr. 
Gray, aye; Rev. Dr. Beckett and Rev. Dr. Humes, 
nay. 

Texas.— Rev. Mr. Rogers and Rev. Mr. Richard- 
son, aye ; Rev. Mr. Bird and Rev. Mr. Davenport, 
nay. 

Vermont. — Rev. Dr. Douglass, Rev. Mr. Bliss, 
Rev. Mr. Putnam, and Rev. Mr. Atwill, aye. 

Virginia. — Rev. Dr. Andrews, Rev. Dr. Norton, 
Rev. Dr. Minnigerode, and Rev. Mr. Hanckel, nay. 

Western New York. — Pi,ev. Dr. Foote, Rev. Dr. 
Rankine, and Rev. Mr. Mann, aye ; Rev. Dr. Shel- 
ton, nay. 

Wisconsin. — Rev. Dr. De Koven, Rev. Mr. Haff, 
and Rev. Mr. Ten Broeck, aye ; Rev. Dr. Adams, 
nay. 

LAY VOTE. 

Alabama. — Messrs. Dawson, Bray, and Clark, 
aye. 

Albany. — Messrs. Meads, Forsyth, Keese, and 
Tremain, aye. 

California. — Messrs. Webb and Walsh, nay. 

Central Nevj York. — Messrs. Comstock and Mc- 
Whorter, aye ; Messrs. Chedell and Clarke, nay. 

Central Pennsylvania. — Messrs. Copp^e and At- 
lee, aye ; Messrs. Lamberton and Rockwell, nay. 

Connecticut. — Messrs. Seymour and Stark, aye; 
Messrs. Robertson and Hayden, nay. 

Delaivare. — Messrs. Fell and Curtis, nay. 

Easton. — Messrs. Walker and Goldsborough, aye; 
Messrs. Mackall and Adkins, nay. 

Florida. — Mr. Walker, aye; Messrs. Daniel, Dot- 1 
terer, and Hamilton, nay. 

Georgia. — Mr. Montgomery, aye; Messrs. Jenkins ! 
and Whittle, nay. 

Illinois. — ^IMessrs. Otis and Whltehouse, aye. 

Indiana. — Mr. Morrison, nay. , 

Iowa. — Messrs. Bever and Daymude, nay. 

Kansas. — Messrs. Farnsworth, Bartholow, Todd, 
and Horton, nay. 

Kentucky.— Mx. Churchill, aye; Messrs. Steven- ( 
son, Cornwall, and Bullock, nay. j 

Long Island. — Messrs. Pierrepont, Hunter, King, ] 
and Mchol, nay. J i 



Louisiana.— My. Race, aye; Mr. Briscoe, nay. 
Maine.— Messrs. Bridge, Ingalls, Jackson, and 
Gardiner, aye. 

Maryland.— Mqbsyq. Brune and Blanchard, aye; 
Mr. Blair, nay. ' 

Massachusetts.— Messrs. Mudge and Shattuck, 
aye ; Messrs. Bennett and Mason, nay. 

Michigan.— Messrs. Trowbridge and Baldwin, 
aye; Mr. Peirce, nay. 

Minnesota.— Messrs. Wilder, Atwater, and Keese, 
nay. 

Mississippi.— Messrs. Stith and Bailey, aye; Mr. 
Pegues, nay. 

Missouri. —Messrs. Bodley and Douglass, aye ; 
Mr. Simpson, nay. 

Nebraska.— Mr. Metcalf, aye. 

New Hampshire.— Mr. Low, aye. 

New Jersey.— Messrs. Garthwaite, Meigs, and 
Mills, aye ; Mr. Parker, nay. 

New York.— Messrs. Buggies, Livingston, and Da- 
vies, aye. 

North Carolina.— Messrs. Battle, De Rossett, 
Smith, and Martin, aye. 

0/ito.— Messrs. Andrews, Moss, Horton, and Dev- 
eraux, nay. 

Pennsylvania.— Me^rs. Harrison, Welsh, Coffin, 
and Hazelhurst, nay. 

Pittsburgh.— Messrs. Cass and Burgwin, aye; 
Messrs. Shoenberger and Howe, nay. 

Rhode Island.— Mr. Stenuess, aye; Messrs. Rich- 
mond and Hoppin, nay. 

South Carolina.— Messrs. McCrady, Lesesne, and 
Smith, nay. 

Tennessee.— Messrs. Thompson and Fairbanks, 
aye ; Messrs. Stephens and Cooper, nay. 

Teojas.- Mr. Aug-ur, aye ; Mr. Jackson, nay. 

Fermoni.— Messrs. Redfleld, Smith, and Canfield 
aye. 

Virginia.— Messrs. Sheffey, Parker, Massie, and 
Taylor, nay. 

Western Neiv York.— Mr. Cuyler, aye ; Messrs. 
Parshall, Smith, and Montgomery, nay. 
Wisconsin.— Mr. Clark, nay. 

So the resolution reported by the committee was 
rejected; and thereupon the House adjourned till 
to-morrow at ten o'clock a.m. 



FH^TEENTH DAY. 

Friday, October 23. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
ten A.M. 

Morning Prayer was said to the Creed by Rev. J. 
S. Hanckel, of Virginia. The Creed and Prayers 
were said by Rev. William C. WiUiams, d.d., of 
Georgia. The Benediction was pronounced by Rt. 
Rev. Joseph C. Talbot, d.d., ll.d., Bishop of 
Indiana. 

The minutes of the proceedings of the open session 
of yesterday were read and approved. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the 
Committee on Elections, reported that leave of 
absence had been granted to Mr. Samuel C. Gray, 
lay delegate from the diocese of California, for the 
rest of the session. 



139 



SUPPORT OF BISHOPS. 
Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island, from the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution, sub- 
mitted the following report : 

"The Committee on Constitutional Amendments, 
to whom was referred the Memorial from the 
Diocese of Tennessee, asking for bji Amendment of 
Article V. of the Constitution by omitting the 
words, ' and such consent shall not be given by the 
General Convention until it has satisfactory 
assurance of a suitable provision for the support of 
the Episcopate in the contemplated new Diocese,' 
respectfully report that the clause proposed to be 
omitted stands as a limitation upon the right of 
creating any new Diocese from one, or more than 
one, of the existing Dioceses of this Church. It is 
a restriction of recent origin, having been first pro- 
posed as a Constitutional Amendment by the Gen- 
eral Convention of 1868, and ratified by the Con- 
vention of 1871. It has therefore been a part of 
the Law of the Church for only three years. The 
Memorial from the Diocese of Tennessee sets forth, 
as we beheve truly, that its necessary operation 
is to obstruct and delay the proper work of the 
Church in many parts of the country. There are 
large Dioceses, especially in the »outhern and 
Southwestern States, coincident in boundary with 
those States, over the whole of which Episcopal 
supervision and ministration is practically im- 
possible, and yet where the Church is so feeble, 
and the po\^erty of the people so great, as to render 
the creation of a fund or endowment for the sup- 
port of a new Episcopate impracticable for the 
time being. Our construction of the clause in 
question is that it requires such an endowment 
sufiicient for the support of a Bishop to be actually 
raised, or at least securely provided for. 

" In the judgment of the Committee the policy of 
this restraint is more than questionable. It seems 
to us more careful of the dignity of the Episcopate 
than of the spread of the Church or the salvation 
of the souls of men. Under a different policy, our 
Church, from a feeble beginning, has grown with 
the expansion of our Episcopate until we have 
forty-one Dioceses, while more are needed, or will 
soon be needed, to carry forward its beneficent 
work. We begin to feel already the check imposed 
upon her growth by a constitutional restraint, 
which requires an endowment first to be raised 
when a Church can hardly be said to exist. We 
shall more nearly conform to the missionary spirit 
of our Church, more truly follow the law of her 
development, if we first build her up in the destitute 
places of our land. Endowment wiU follow an 
Episcopate, but cannot precede it, except in regions 
where the Church communion is already strong, 
both in numbers and wealth. 

" Of the forty-one Dioceses now existing there are 
very few in which the Episcopate is supported by 
the income of an adequate fund. If we refer the 
enquiry to our whole Church, we shall find that the 
chief basis of support is parish assessment and con- 
tribution. If this be so, the question is full of sig- 
nificance : What would now be the condition of 
the American Church if, in her infancy, the law of 
her growth had been reversed by a constitutional 
limitation, like the one now in question ? The sup- 
port of a new Episcopate is essentially a matter of 
civil contract between the Bishop-elect and the 
people who caU him to be their Chief Pastor, and 
we see no sufficient reason for restraining their action 
by organic law. The elected Bishop, who is chiefly 
concerned in the question, may have the means of 
seK-support, and if, with the zeal of a Peter or a 
Paul, a Wilson or a Selwyn, he is ready to carry 
the message of his Divine Master where it is most 
needed, ought we to arrest his steps by a law which 
e rtainly would, have a strange significance in Apos- 



toKc days ? Or, he also may be poor and yet willing 
to share the poverty of those to whom he is sent, re- 
lying on them to provide for humble wants, and 
relying yet more on the sustaining power of Divine 
Providence. 

"The Committee recommend to the House the 
adoption of the following resolutions : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). That 
the Fifth Article of tbe Constitution be amended by 
striking out the following words, ' and such consent 
shall not be given by the General Convention, until 
it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable provision 
for the support of the Episcopate in the contem- 
plated new Diocese.' 

"Resolved, That such Amendment be notified to 
the several Diocesan Conventions, in accordance 
with the Mnth Article of the Constitution, so that 
the same may be agreed to or ratified by the next 
General Convention. 

(Signed) CHARLES H. HALL, Chairman." 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Allow me to enquire from which House that amend- 
ment in 1868 emanated ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I forget now 
exactly. The article was ratKer largely changed. 
I cannot answer the question exactly. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Perhaps the Secretary can tell us in which House 
the amendment making it necessary to provide for 
the Bishop's support before he could be elected, 
originated. Was it in this House or the House of 
Bishops ? 

The SECRETARY. The House of Bishops. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
So I supposed. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. There was a 
change in another part of the clause at the time. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution wiU be placed 
on the Calendar. 

DELEGATION TO CANADIAN PROVINCIAL SYNOD. 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
The Committee on the State of the Church are pre- 
pared to make a report, and I call upon my col- 
leag-ue. Rev. Dr. Minnigerode, of Virginia, to read 
the report. 

Rev. Dr. MINNIGERODE, of Virginia. The ac- 
tion of the Committee on the State of the Church is 
regarding Message No. 20 from the House of 
Bishops. That message announced the adoption by 
that House of the following resolutions : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), That the Joint Committee to confer 
with the Joint Committee of the Provincial Synod of 
Canada be continued until the next General Conven- 
tion. 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), That a deputation, consisting of 
three Bishops, three Presbyters, and three Laymen, 
be appointed to attend the next Provincial Synod of 
Canada, with a view to the promotion of the joint 
interests of the two Churches." 

The above resolutions are concurred in, and the 
nomination of the presbyters and laymen contem- 
plated in the second resolution referred to the Com- 
mittee. 

"The Committee on the Sta^te of the Church, 
to whom W9.S referred Message No. 20 from the 
House of Bishops, respectfully nominate the Rev. 
Dr. Craik, of Kentucky ; the Rev. Dr. Van Deusen, 
of Central New York ; the Rev. Dr. Schenck, of 
Long Island ; and Governor Fish, of New York; 
Governor Stevenson, of Kentucky; and Judge 
Otis, of Illinois, as members on the part of the 
House of the Joint Delegation to the next Provin- 
cial Synod of Canada." 

" The Committee on the State of the Church set 
down also the names of the three highest after those 



140 



that were elected: Dr. Shelton, Dr. Vinton, Dr. 

Leeds, and among the Laity Chief-Justice Waite, 
Mr. Welsh, of Pennsylvania, and Governor Bald- 
win, and request the Chairman of the Committee to 
fill up any vacancies which may occur in the list of 
those appointed as Deputies. " 

I suppose, Mr. President, it will be proper to con- 
firm the action of the Committee. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolutions will go on 
the Calendar. 

REDUCTION OF PRINTED JOURNAL. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. The mem- 
bers of the House will remember that the Commit- 
tee on Expenses is also a joint committee to confer 
with a committee of the House of Bishops as to 
some mode of reducing the expense of the Journal. 
Our Journal costs us about $8,000, audit was thought 
proper to try to adopt some measure to reduce that 
great expense. It was found on conferring with 
the members of the other Committee that several 
ways and means were proposed, but they needed a 
good deal of consideration, lest whilst we reduced 
the expense of the Journal we should diminish its 
value. This is the resolution agreed upon unani- 
mously by the whole Committee : 

" Resolved, That there be appointed a Committee 
of Publication, composed of a member of the House 
of Bishops, and of one Clerical and one Lay member 
of the House of Deputies, together with the Secreta- 
ries of both Houses, who shall take order as to the 
publication of the two journals, and adopt some 
means by which the expense and size of the journals 
may be materially reduced. 

"Provided, That any scheme which may be 
adopted by this Committee shall include the furnish- 
ing of a copy of the Constitution and Canons of this 
Church to any clergyman and condidate for orders 
in the same." 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution wiU go on the 
Calendar. 

POINTING- OP THE PSALTER. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. At the 
request of the Chairman, I have a report from the 
Committee on the Prayer-Book. 

"The Committee on the Prayer-Book, to whom was 
referred the following resolution, report in favor of 
its adoption : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the Standing Committee on the Standard 
Prayer-Book be authorized and instructed to intro- 
duce into all future editions of said Standard Pray- 
er-Book the colon or musical pause in each verse of 
the Psalter and Canticles, in accordance with the 
pointing of the Prayer-Book of the Church of Eng- 
land." 

The object of this resolution is to afford facilities 
for chanting the Psalter. It is already the practice 
in many of our congregations to chant portions of 
the Psalter. There have been many petitions sent 
in at different Conventions, asking for a minute 
pointing of the Psalter. They have been rejected 
because they were impracticable. There is a great 
variety of practice in the Church in regard to the 
cadence, or the more minute divisions of pointing, 
besides giving instruction in the reading of the 
Psalter. But we can agree upon a little point, which 
is a natural division in each verse of the Psalter. 
The Psalter is constructed, as you know, on the 
principle of parallelisms, the first clause expressing 
the sentiment in one form, and the last clause in an- 
other form, or in other words. There is, therefore, 
a natural division, and the colon comes in at the 
point between the two clauses. It does not obstruct 
the reading of the Psalter. It is very useful in the 
chanting of the Psalter in the congregation, ena- 
bling members of the congregation to join in the 
chaat, whatever may be the minute point of the car 



dence, because they know the point where the two 
i parts of the chant divide, 

. This pointing has always been, from the days of 
j the Reformation, in the Prayer-Book of the Church 
j of England. In the very title-page of that Prayer- 
Book it is explained to be for the purpose of chant- 
ing the Psalter, and it is pointed for the purpose of 
chanting. It was retained even in the proposed 
book, and I do not know but that our friends who 
have gone out from us still retain it in the book they 
have adopted. If they do, they have that advan- 
tage over us. I know not how it came to be left 
out." We cannot ascertain how it came to be left 
out of our American Prayer-Book. I have asked 
the Secretary of the House, who certainly ought to 
know if any man, whether there was any action of 
the Church on that subject, and he does not know 
of any. It seems to have been simply the action of 
a printer : and are we to be deprived in our Church, 
by the action of the printer, of so great an advan- 
tage in the chanting of the Psalter ? The object of 
the pointing is to allow those who desire to chant 
the Psalter, the greatest facility possible. I move 
the adoption of the resolution. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution wiU go on the 
Calendar. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would amend 
by moving that that be referred to the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution, or at least that 
my resolution to that effect be referred to the Com- 
mittee on the Prayer-Book, that the question may 
come up whether that is a change within the pur- 
view of the article. It may be simply the change 
of a jot or tittle, and if it is so, we had better know 
it. If we can make the change, even the colon, I 
am in favor of it. I should like to see it done. I 
think it is a proper thing ; but I would have my 
resolution referred to the Committee on the Prayer- 
Book, that they mav consider that point. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. I think 
the Committee on the Prayer-Book would certainly 
report as they have done on that point. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution had better go 
on the Calendar, if it is to be discussed. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. Very 
well. 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS. 

Rev. Dr. PAYNE, of Albany, from the Commit- 
tee on Unfinished Business, submitted the following 
report : 

"The Committee on Unfinished Business respect- 
fully report: That upon examination of the Journal 
of 1871, they find the following subjects were con- 
tinued and referred to this Convention for further 
action : 

"1. New rules of order for this House. (See 
Journal, pp. 108-201.) 

" 2. Republication of early Journals (p. 195). 

" 3. Deaconesses (pp. 172, 174, 208). 

" Committees and Joint Committees, on other 
subjects, appointed at the last Convention, may be 
expected to report as follows : 

"1. On Hymnal; 2. On Friendly Intercourse with 
the Church in Sweden; 3. On Communication with 
the Russo-Greek Church ; 4. On Translations of the 
Book of Common Prayer in French, in German, in 
Spanish; .5. On Rehgious Reformation in Italy; 6. 
On Christian Education." 

DECEASED MEMBERS. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. When I 
had the honor to present to the House on the twelfth 

I day, on behaK of the Committee on Memorials of 
Deceased Members, their report, distinguished Depu- 
ties from North Carolina arose and mentioned the 
name of Mr. Patterson, Lay Deputy in the Conven- 
tion of 1871, who had died smce the last Convention. 

' This was the first information the Committee had 



141 



obtained of his death, although we had made enquii-y 

amongst various deputations. The report was, 
therefore, informaih^ referred back to tiie Commit- 
tee, and they now submit it again, with a portion 
added to the report relative to these deceased mem- 
bers. I would ]3ropose only to read that portion of 
the report, and then ask the vote of the House on 
the resolutions appended to the report. The omis- 
sion referred to was afterwards inserted by the Com- 
mittee and appears in their report, marked No. 11, as 
follows : 

" XI. In the early part of the year 1874, Samuel 
F. Patterson, Lay Deputy in 1871 from the Diocese 
of North Carolina,"^ departed this life. He was born 
in the State of Virginia, but removed to North Car- 
ohna while he was quite a young man, and passed 
his long and useful life in the Avestern part of the 
State. He filled many ofiices of high responsibility, 
and was always distinguished for the purity of his 
character and'the integrity of his life. He was a de- 
voted Churchman, and after having attained the age 
of threescore years and ten, he died universally la- 
mented." 

I ask that the House now vote upon the resolu- 
tions accompanying the report : 

" Resolved, That the report and memorial of the 
Committee on Memorials of Deceased Members be 
printed as an appendix to the J ournal of this House. 

" Resolved, That this House mourn the decease 
from the Church militant of these faithful soldiers 
and earnest followers of the Lord. 

"Resolved, That this House holds their memory 
in reverence, and desires to place on record its esti- 
mate of their worth and seiwice ; and, while bless- 
ing God for them, prays for grace to follow their 
good examples, and with them to become partakers 
of the heavenly kingdom. " 

It is the opinion of the Committee, if the House is 
willing, that the question on these resolutions should 
be taken by a standing vote. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the report 
and resolutions from the Committee on Memorials 
of Deceased Members be put upon their passage now 
by a standing vote. No objection being made, that 
course will be adopted. Those members who are 
in favor of the adoption of the resolution reported 
will rise. 

The whole House arose, and the resolutions were 
carried unanimously. 

RITUAL, 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I present a 
memorial from Governor Dix and three hundred 
other Laymen, communicants in our Church in the 
city of New York, requesting that the Convention 
will not restrain their present liberty by the pas- 
sage of a Canon restraining or restricting Ritual as 
it now exists in our Church. It is as follows: 

"To the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical 
and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
of the United States, assembled in General Conven- 
tion in the city of New York; The petition of the 
undersigned Laymen, communicants of said Church, 
of the city of New York, respectfully shows: That 
your petitioners having in view the subject of Ritual 
Observances, now before your honorable body, de- 
precate any restrictive action being taken therein, 
for the following reasons: First. The passage of a 
Canon on that subject would not bring peace to our 
beloved Church, but on the contrary would tend to 
increase the divisions now so unhappily prevailing 
in it. It would deprive us, of the Laity, of the kind 
of services to which we are accustomed and to which 
we have a right. Second. The passage of any Canon 
affecting the ceremonial observa,nces of the Church 
would, by implication at least, involve a change in 
the Prayer-Book. Third. Any legislation by your 
honorable body which would by implication change 
the mode of 'Administration of the Sacraments and 



otiier Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, ' cannot of 

right be affected by Canon, but only by an alteration 
of the Prayer-Book according to the Constitution. 
Fourth. Your petitioners further represent that 
with the advancing intelligence of this age and this 
free country, the true line of progress of this Church 
is in an increasing liberality and comprehensiveness 
in all matters not of the essentials of the Faith, 
rather than in returning to an enforced narrow- 
nes,=; of uniformity, which belongs to a past age, and 
; is utterly foreign to the natural tendencies of Amer- 
! ican Churchmen. Your petitioners, therefore, 
earnestly praj" that your honorable body will re- 
frain from passing any Canon that shall interfere 
with or in any way change the liberty now guaran- 
teed to us by the Prayer-Book. And your petition- 
ers will ever pray, etc. 

Dated October 13, 1874. (Signed) 
EDWARD MATHEWS, B. B. SHERMAN, 
JOHN J. CISCO, C. V. B. OSTRANDER, ' 

ELDRIDGE T. GEARY, FRANCIS MAURY, 
J. J. ASTOR, CHAS. E. BOGERT, 

THOMAS L. OGDEN, W. W. ASTOR, 
' JOHN A. DIX, STEPHEN C. ROWAN, 

: A. B. Mcdonald, a. j. drexel, 

I S. D. NASH, H. B. CLARK, 

And others." 
The memorial was referred to the Committee on 
: Canons, 

THE HYMNAL, 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island, I beg leave to 
offer in the name of the only member of the Hymnal 
Committee who is left on "^the floor of this House, 
the report of the Joint Committee on the Hymnal. 
The only member left on that Committee in this 
House is Hon. Mr, Pierrepont. I will read the 
report : 

The Joint Committee on the "Hymnal" respect- 
fully report that soon after the adjournment of the 
last General Convention the Trustees of the Fund 
for the Relief of Widows and Orphans of Deceased 
Clergymen, and of Aged, Infirm, and Disabled 
Clergymen, in whom the copyright of the 
" Hynmal " was vested, contracted with ten respect- 
: able publishing houses for the printing and sale of 
I the book ; and a set of electrotype plates, taken from 
I the original standard, was ordered to be placed, on 
the same date, in the hands of each of these pub- 
hshers. 

I The returns of the royalty show that three hun- 
' dred and twenty-one thousand eight hundred and 
I fifty-one copies of the "Hymnal " have been printed, 
■ giving to the Trustees the" sum of $12,650 86 for in- 
vestment and distribution. So far as we are in- 
formed, no complaint has been made of the cost of 
j the book, and it is not believed that the current 
! price has been seriously affected by the royalty re- 
' turned to the Trustees by the publishers. 

The Committee have held several protracted ses- 
sions during the past three years, and carefully con- 
sidered all the important suggestions relating to the 
"Hymnal" which have come to them, either 
through private or public channels, while special 
attention has been dii'ected to the points suggested 
and recommended in several reports made to Dio- 
cesan Conventions. The experience of the last three 
years has been useful in acquainting the Committee 
with the preferences of the Church at large in re- 
spect to the relative value of various hymns for the 
purposes of public worship. There is a common 
instinct which regulates the use of sacred lyrics, and 
it may not be easy in all cases to see precisely what 
the element is which gives to a hymn its popularity. 
Some of those which are in most general us'e are de- 
ficient in everything which belongs to the higher 
order of poetical composition. The hymns which 
are best liked by the people at large are often such as- 
' are most severely and justly criticised. But t^ejl. 



142 



is something which gives them currency, and makes 
them effective; it may be the rhythm of the words 
and syllables, the ring of the rhyme, the charm of 
the music, or some early and sacred association with 
which they are connected. 

The number of absolutely good hymns is com- 
paratively small, and it may not include those 
which a,re most commonly sung. There are those 
who call upon us to winnow the "Hymnal," and 
cast out all the feeble, commonplace, prosaic, didac- 
tic, doctrinal, and descriptive compositions which 
are alleged to be found here, and then let us have a 
small collection of the choicest and most classical 
lyrics that exist in the English tongue. This may 
be the ideal hymn-book, but it is impracticable. 

The experiment has been tested in the Church of 
England, and the result has been a great multipli- 
cation of hymn-books, the people insisting on the 
use of thdir favorite hymns, irrespective of any 
classical standard. 

It must be borne in mind that this Committee was 
created on the principle of representing various 
views on this subject which are entitled to respect. 
The members of the Committee were forced to re- 
spect this principle ; and the result is due to no indi- 
vidual sentiment, but to a desire on the part of all 
the members to act on the avowed principle of their 
appointment. 

Here it may be added, that if the whole mass of 
communications which have poured in upon the 
Committee since the last Convention should be pub- 
lished, it would be seen that to reduce the 
"Hymnal " to a small compass and make the result 
acceptable to any large class of persons is simply 
impossible. There are some who clamor for the re- 
tention of all the old metrical psalms and hymns, 
while others say that too many of them have been 
retained. Some would reject all the translations of 
the old Latin hymns, and others would abjure 
nearly all the hymns that are modern. If we are 
to wait until a Hymnal is compiled that will satisfy 
all, we must give up the attempt to frame any book 
for the common worship of the Church, and throw 
the whole matter open for every congregation to 
sing what they please, in which case there would 
probably be many more discontented spirits than 
there are now, and a jargon of doctrine introduced 
Utterly inconsistent with the unity of the Church's 
faith. 

Public attention has been directed to the fact 
that the " Hymnal," as it has been sent out into the 
Church, does not correspond in every particular with 
the book as adopted by the Convention. The Com- 
mittee trust that a simple and candid explanation of 
all that needs to be explained will in good measure 
remove both complaint and suspicion. 

It was the order of the Convention that the book 
should be remanded to the Committee for revision, 
contemplating the removal from it of any remain- 
ing literary inaccuracies or defects, and for the pre- 
paration of a standard edition. With the view of 
executing this trust as carefully and thoroughly as 
possible, it was unanimously deemed advisable to 
commit the work of clerical correction to a single 
hand, and to employ upon it a gentleman, a clergy- 
man of the Church, well known as a painstaking 
student in hymnology. Upon the suggestion that it 
would reduce the size of the musical editions, as a 
matter of economy, he was authorized to change in 
some degree the arrangement and numbering of the 
hymns. 

In conformity with the ordinary practice in our 
modern hymn-books, and in order to secure uniform- 
ity in the "Hymnal," it was determined to place an 
appropriate expression of Scripture at the head of 
each hymn where it was not already to be found, to 
wh^ch it was believed no possible objection eould be 
mfl/^ ft , 



In making the arrangement above referred to, 

the Committee ask leave to acknowledge, with re- 
gret but franldy, two mistakes, neither of which 
was apprehended at the time, one on their own part, 
and the other on the part of the gentleman who un- 
dertook the work. The Committee were not, for 
reasons partly personal and partly arising from the 
distances which separated them, sufficiently explicit, 
definite, and peremptory in stating the precise na- 
ture and limits of what "was to be done. If the cleri- 
cal curator seemed to have stretched in some re- 
spects the authority with which he was entrusted, 
the Committee found that the fault could be reme- 
died, at the time, only at great expense and long de- 
lay. 

It ought to be observed that the Committee are 
in no way responsible for alleged variations from 
the standard edition introduced by publishers 
through carelessness or intention. The evil can be 
met only by a zealous vigilance of the public and 
the press iii holding every printer and bookseller to 
a strict conformity to the standard. 

The Committee were further instructed to con- 
sider and at their discretion report to the Convention 
additional hymns " suitable for Sunday-schools and 
for meetings of lay workers. " 

In the opinion of the Committee, it is to be de- 
sired that the children of the Church should become 
familiar with the hymns which in after-years they 
are to sing in the public worship of the sanctuary, 
and it is thought that the " Hymnal " already con- 
tains a sufficient variety of hymns suitable for Sun- 
day-schools and for meetings of lay workers. For 
those who may desire a wider range of hymns for 
children, there are to be found a number of excel- 
lent compilations, and it is doubtful whether these 
would be generally superseded by any collection 
that might be prepared by your Committee. 

Respecting the alterations which the Committee 
made in the "Hymnal," what, has publicly trans- 
pired will amply justify the Committee in saying a 
few words. They were made in an undoubting con- 
viction that they were all within the instructions 
and intentions of the last Convention, and with an 
unmixed desire to improve the book in every possi- 
ble and lawful way. Plates having been cast, a 
question arose, and then for the first time, whether 
any of the changes were really to be disallowed. 
Each hymn omitted was carefully examined, and 
the book was thought to be improved by the omis- 
sion of nearly all which had thus been left out, eith- 
er because the hymn omitted was virtually a repe- 
tition or because it was intrinsically of little value, 
and for no other reason ; the additions were exam- 
ined in the same way ; and the conclusion reached 
was not only that there was nothing in any of them 
which could be objected to on the score of doctrine, 
but that the book would upon the whole be im- 
proved by the introduction of most of these hymns. 

The Committee may have mistaken the mean- 
ing of the votes in both Houses under which they 
prosecuted their work. They have certainly acted 
in good faith and with no apprehension of being 
blamed. It is a painful surprise to them to find that 
they are arraigned as exceeding the limits of their 
duty. It was their belief that what the practical 
sense of the Church demanded was the best Hymnal 
they could make with their resources and opportu- 
nities. To that end they steadily, and we think we 
can say patiently, labored. If pecuniary considera- 
tions are worth iDeing alluded to, we maybe permit- 
ted to say that the Committee have reheved the 
Convention of the payment of $652 expended in the 
preparation of the original report, for which the 
Chairman of the Committee was authorized to draw 
on the Treasurer of the Convention ; they have as- 
sumed personally- the payment of all the costs incur- 
red in preparing the present report; they have also 



143 



cheerfully met all the expense involved in meeting 
together at least once in every year during the last 
six years, and other incidental charges, which it is 
not necessary to specify. 

The Committee would further state that in anti- 
cipation of the possibility that the Convention may 
not desii e to continue the " Hymnal " indefinitely 
in its present form, they have prepared and caused 
to be printed, for the use of the Convention, a re- 
vised edition of the book, which they now submit to 
your inspection. This they have done at their own 
cost, and mainly through the liberality of a Lay 
member of the "Committee. It has been found that 
the alterations contained in this revised edition can 
be made at a cost of about one hundred dollars for 
each set of pla,tes. 

Having done all which they feel they can be ex- 
pected to do, in the earnest effort to secure a suita- 
ble "Hymnal " for the use of the Church in public 
worship, they respectfully ask to be discharged. 
(Signed) THOMAS M. CLARKE, 

G. T. BEDELL, 
A. CLEVELAND COXE, 
M. A. DeWOLFE HOWE, 
F. D. HUNTINGTON, 
HENRY E. PIERREPONT. 
I move that this report and the message of the 
House of Bishops on the same subject be made the 
order of business at two o'clock on Monday. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. I offer as a 
substitute : 

" Resolved, That the revised Hymnal reported by 
the Hymnal Committee, together with aU memo- 
rials and resolutions on the subject of the Hymnal 
that have been or may be presented at this session 
to this House, be referred to a special committee of 
three clergymen and three laymen to consider and 
report to this body." 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Is that an 
amendment to my motion ? I hope it wDl not be 
pressed. We have not time to go to another spe- 
cial committee. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I was go- 
ing to call attention to the fact that there is already 
a committee on certain matters touching the H37in- 
nal. Am I mistaken ? 

The PRESIDENT. That was appointed as a 
joint committee, and the House of Bishops having 
refused to join in the Committee, the Committee of 
course fell. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Then, if 
it is necessary to appoint any Committee, I suppose 
a special committee will be necessary. I myself 
am not in favor of auy special committee. I en- 
tirely agree with the Delegate from Long Island 
that our time has been too much consmned already 
by matters brought before us prior to to-day; but 
I trust that some definite time will be fixed, and 
that this whole matter of the Hymnal be made an 
order for that time. There is a great deal to be said 
on this matter. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Certainly there 
is, on both sides. My motion is that it be made the 
order of business for two o'clock on Monday next. 

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. I suggest that 
the Committee on Canons will probably report to- 
day a Canon on Ritual, and they have instructed 
me to ask the House to fix next Monday at either 
twelve or two o'clock for taking it up. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Twelve 
o'clock. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I merely wish to 
give this notice to Dr. Hall. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Lon^ Island. You had better 
take twelve. This gentleman agrees with me that 
the Committee on Canons will ask for their Canon on 
Ritual to be taken up at twelve o'clock on Monday, 



! and I insist on my resolution that the subject 
of the Hymnal be the order for two o'clock. 
Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. I withdraw 
i my proposition. 

I Rev. Dr. LOCKE, of Illinois. Can we not pass 
I this now without any taUc upon it ? [ " No, " ' ' No. "] 
' The PRESIDENT. I hope the House will under- 
stand that it cannot be discussed on its merits. We 
have to adopt a Hymnal of some sort from somebody. 
The motion now is to make this report and the reso- 
lutions the order of the day for Monday at two 
o'clock. 

! Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I beg to suggest 
i to the Reverend Deputy from Long Island that he 
I might perhaps meet the views of the Committee on 
j Canons and his own also better by making the 
I appointment for two o'clock or twelve o'clock on 
I Tuesday, 

! Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Are we 
1 to understand, then, that the Committee on Canons 
' are prepared to report, and to ask to make their re- 
port the order of the day on Monday at twelve 
o'clock ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Yes, sir. 
Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Is it to be 
supposed that the debate on that matter will be con- 
cluded in two hours ? Probably not. Therefore 
I agree with the Deputy from Alabama, that the 
report on the Hymnal had better be made the order 
of the day for Tuesday, if so be that we shall be 
lucky enough to get through the Ritual report by 
that time. There is a great deal to be said in regard 
to this matter of the Hymnal. There are several 
Deputies I believe, one certainly, who have been in- 
I structed to utter the voice of their Dioceses against 
accepting this Hymnal as a finality. There is a 
very great deal to be said about it. It seems to me 
a very important matter. I for one, in behalf of 
the Diocese of Pennsylvania, shall claim the right 
to be heard. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi- 
dent, it seems to me that it would be far better if we 
could take up this matter of the Hymnal before we 
enter upon the vexed question of Ritual, for I am 
very much afraid that after we get into the Ritual 
question, if we do go into it, we may not be in any 
condition to sing hymns. [Laughter.] Therefore I 
would venture to suggest that it would be very weU 
to take up the Hymnal question, about which, though 
there is difference of opinion, there is probably 
no very vast difference of opinion, before we enter 
on this most difficult question. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I differ with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin entirely. I think the re- 
sult of the debate on the Ritual Canon, which will 
be presented by the Committee on Canons, will 
cause us to sing hymns, and we shall be prepared to 
praise God for the ujaanimity with which this 
House will adopt the Canon reported by the Com- 
mittee. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Some one 
suggests to me that the IBible says : If any man is 
afflicted, let him sing Psalms. [Laughter.] But 
this is not a question of Psalms, but Hymns. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I only wish to 
say that the intimation given by the Clerical Deputy 
from Pennsylvania, shows that there will be some 
difference of opinion on the Hymnal, and therefore 
I would suggest that if all the expressions of opin- 
ion from the different Dioceses are to be submitted, 
as has been propesed, to a special committee, prob- 
ably such a report will be made as wUl meet the 
wishes of all parties, and expedite action upon the 
Hvmnal, because then all will be heard. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. Mr. Presi- 
dent, why can we not go on with the Hymnal to- 
day ? We are very harmonious, and I am disposed, 



144 



to hurry up our business. I therefore move that 
the Hymnal be made the special order at two o'clock 
to-day. 

Rev. Mr. ROG-ERS, of Texas. First upon the 
Calendar is the matter pertaining to the Constitu- 
tional Amendment, and also the report of the 
Committee on Constitutional Amendments, and un- 
derlying it all the question of setting off a portion 
of the territory of Texas. The House of Bishops 
have already acted on that, and by Message No. 34 
sent to us their action for our concurrence. This 
action has been taken in the House of Bishops for 
the reason that, if we concur with them, there are 
certain other things to be done during this session. 
The territory set off is to be erected into missionary 
jurisdictions. After that, Bishops are to be nomi- 
nated to this House. After that, order is to be 
taken for their consecration. As the matter has 
been before us now in three General Conventions, 
covering nine years, and as to-day is the day when 
it properly comes up for hearing, I hope no order 
of the day will be allowed to take its place. I would 
be very glad to know that it could be passed with- 
out discussion, as a gentleman suggests, but I under- 
stand it will not. i have to move, when I can prop- 
erly, that the Message of the House of Bishops, No. 
34, be concurred in. Will the gentleman withdi^aw 
his motion for two o'clock this afternoon ? 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. No, sir; I 
think we had better hold on to it. I do not propose 
to discuss it, but to get the sense of the House. Let 
us vote on my motion. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I thmk you are all 
aWare that there will be a discussion which drives 
over this business that has been before us now for 
nine years. It puts off the whole matter, perhaps 
beyond this Convention, and I hope you will not al- 
low it to take precedence of the other. 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. I second the 
proposition of the gentleman from Georgia for a 
special committee. 

The PRESIDENT. That has been withdrawn. 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. I renew it, 
because I apprehend that, if the question of the 
Hymnal be opened in this House, it will result in our 
having no Hymnal at ail, and if a special committee 
is appointed, particularly if it shall be composed of 
those who object to the present Hymnal, I think by 
a conference in a day or two we can have such a re- 
port as will lead to a unanimous or nearly unani- 
mous conclusion. Otherwise I apprehend the great- 
est difficulty in coming to any result. 

Rsv. Mr."^STUNiij, of Delaware. Which motion 
is before the House i Three or four motions have 
been made. 

The PRESIDENT. The first question is on the 
motion of Dr. Hall on behalf of the Joint Com- 
mittee. 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. My proposi- 
tion was an amendment to the motion of the gentle- 
man from New York (Mr. Livinarston). 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
rise to a point of order. A motion to recommit is 
not an amendment, but a privileged motion to be 
made at any time and taken without debate. A 
motion to recommit a matter to another committee 
is a privileged question superseding the other, and 
must be taken without debate. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I understand 
that a motion to recommit to a committee already 
existing is privileged matter which cannot be de- 
bated, but the question whether we shall make a 
committee in order to recommit, I think can be de- 
bated. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
The question has been asked, and considered by the 
Committee and persons interested in these rules, 
what they would say to a motion to recommit a 



I matter to the same Committee. The idea of the 
gentleman most familiar with the subject is that 
! where a thing has been before a committee and ex- 
! amined, and the House wants it to go to any com- 
I mittee, special or standing, it must be so ordered 
without debate. 

The PRESIDENT. The rule is very distinct that 
a motion to recommit any subject that has been be- 
fore a committee must be decided without debate. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. To recommit to 
that Committee, not to another committee. Is that 
not it ? 

The PRESIDENT. It does not say anything 
about that. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. Certainly a fair con- 
struction of the rule of order requires the Chair to 
hold that a motion to recommit is to send back to 
the same Committee. I apprehend that no parha- 
mentarian ever heard of recommitting a thing to a 
different Committee. That is new matter. There 
is no re about it. The re is to send it back to the 
same Committee. I think there can be no two 
opinions on that point among parliamentarians. 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. The rule 
reads thus : 

"There shall be no debate upon a resolution 
which proposes to refer any matter to a commit- 
tee." 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. If this 
matter be not debatable, I would request the Cleri- 
cal Deputy from Virginia to withdraw his motion 
for a single moment. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I think it is 
debatable. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. The Chair 
has decided otherwise. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I rise to a 
point of order, that the subject-matter of the Hym- 
nal caimot be debated on this motion ; but the ex- 
pediency of the motion can be debated. 

The PRESIDENT. There is no resolution before 
the House, as I understand, which proposes to refer 
this matter to the same Committee, it is a motion 
to refer to a special committee, and therefore de- 
batable. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Then I 
wish to state in a few words my object. If gentle- 
men will carefully read over the resolution reported 
here from the Upper House, I think it will be found 
that that resolution, and action under it, have a 
certain character of finality. I wish the Secretary 
to read the resolution of the House of Bishops in 
their message on that subject. 

The Secretary read Message No. 32 from the 
House of Bishops. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I simply 
desire the Convention in this matter to act advis- 
edly. It seems to me that the resolution reported 
from the Upper House gives to the Hymnal present- 
ed to us through their liberality a certain character 
of finahty. I think that if we vote in the affirma- 
tive on the resolution reported from the Upper 
House, it will have the effect of an utterance by 
this body of an absolute and final approval 
of the Hymnal submitted. I know per- 
fectly well that it is within the power of the 
General Convention at any time to take up the 
whole matter and review it ; but I know also that 
when any action on the part of the General Conven- 
tion has received this quality of finality, there is a 
certain conservative reluctance to touch it again. 
I know, further, that if any attempt at some future 
time should be made to review the Hymnal, the ac- 
tion of this body will be ^pleaded as a bar in the 
way. I do not believe, moreover, that this body 
can reach a clear, well-understood determination in 
this matter without considering certain things con- 



145 



nedted with the history of the production of this 
Hymnal. 

it will be observed that we have two resolutions 
before us, one touching the Hymnal itself, concern- 
ing which a great deal is to be said, and one touch- 
ing the action of the Committee. Tlaat second reso- 
lution involves two distinct points. In so far as it 
is a resolution of thanks to the Committee for their 
very great trouble,— -indeed, I do not think any terms 
can be too superlative to expi'ess that trouble, — and 
their great liberality, I heartily agree to it. I know 
individual members of that Committee who are out 
of pocket several hundred dollars by this work. I 
for one, and I suppose this whole Con- 
vention, will vote a most hearty affir- 
mative. But there is a clause that 
we thank the Committee for having received sug- 
gestions and criticisms, and carefully considered 
them. ISTow, sir, that is a very suspicious sentence. 
Is it not a most extraordinary thing that we should 
thank a committee of this body for having received 
om* criticisms and suggestions ^ Is it so great a fa- 
vor that they have listened to us ? There have been 
objections to the consideration of suggestions. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I rise to a point 
of order. 

The PRESIDENT. The hour for entering upon 
the Calendar has arrived. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I rise to make 
a suggestion which I think will facilitate the labors 
of this Convention. I move that the Secretary be 
directed to have the Calendar printed. I do not 
know what is on the Calendar, and nobody else can 
know as at present advised. I think the Convention 
will find that it will lessen its labors greatly to have 
the Calendar printed, and I make that motion. 

The PRESIDENT. Will the Convention enter- 
tain the motion for printing the Calendar ? 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I ask if it is not 
printed in The Daily Churchman, and if so, wiU 
not that supply the information ? 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. It never has 
been printed that I know of. It ought to be printed 
daily, and furnished to each member of the Conven- 
tion. It costs little, and will add greatly to the 
promptness of the discharge of business. 

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. I rise to 
suggest to the gentleman whether it is not better to 
wait until after to-morrov/. I believe to-morrow is 
the last day when new matter can be introduced. 
The Calendar v\^ill be more useful if printed after 
to-morrow. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I ask whether 
if we come to the order of the day we should not 
do it at once, and if not, whether anything can take 
the place of m3'' resolution. I have offered a reso- 
lution. A gentleman comes in now with a different 
matter to cut me off. I give way to the order of 
the day, but not to that. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not see that the motion 
just made can be entertained without the general 
consent of the House. 

DIOCESE BECOMING A MISSIONARY JURISDICTION. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Then I move that 
Message No. 34 from the House of Bishops be taken 
up. and then I shall move that it be concurred in. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I move that 
that be referred to the Committee on Amendments 
to the Constitution. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I desire to say 
upon the motion to refer to the Committee on Con- 
stitution, that this matter has been before the House 
now for three sessions. It has been referred to the 
Committee on Constitution, in substance, in these 
messages, and it has been before them. We have 
their report. We have the action of the House of 
Bishops, and now I believe I can convince this 



House, if I am allowed to do so, as I suppose I may 
be, that there should be immediate action, and that 
here is the place and now is the time to decide 
this matter, once and for ever. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Is the motion 
to refer to a committee debatable ? 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I would 
suggest to the gentleman from Texas that if he 
would not interfere with Mr. Livingston's motion to 
make the Hymnal the order of the day at two 
o'clock, it is very probable that the matter of Texas 
can be settled in the meantime. It is one of the 
clearest cases that can come before us. I do not see 
what occasion it can give for any large discussion in 
this House, and a s the case is an urgent one requiring 
prompt attention in order to subsequent action. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I rise to a point 
of order. 

The PRESIDENT. If you postpone the point of 
order now, we shall get on faster. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I make my 
point of order. The question is to refer to a com- 
mittee. The gentleman is discussing the merits of 
the question itself. 

The PRESIDENT. Which he has the right to do. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Touching 
the point of order, I believe the Chair will agree 
that Mr. Livingston's motion came before that of 
the gentleman from Virginia, and it is in connec- 
tion with that motion and the business of the gen- 
tleman from Texas that I would speak. I would 
submit to him, therefore, whether he feels bound to 
interfere with the motion to make the Hymnal the 
order of the day for two o'clock to-day, and, mean- 
while, get an opportunity to bring up the Texas 
matter, and I think the House will put its seal upon 
it almost immediately. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. It seems to me the 
matter of Texas may be decided, and then the other 
motion without interruption. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Let the Hymnal 
go on the Calendar. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. If there were to 
be no discussion I would not say a word, but I 
am aware that there is to be a strong effort made to 
send this back to the Committee, and there to be 
considerpid for I do not know how long, and the 
effect will be to throw it beyond the action of this 
Convention at this term, and therefore I beg to state 
the case of the Diocese of Texas. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I call the atten- 
tion of the Chair to the twelfth rule. I raise the 
question of order, whether upon a question to com- 
mit or to recommit there can be debate. 

The PRESIDENT. I have decided that point of 
order. This is not a resolution. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Does the Chair 
think a motion to recommit and a resolution to re- 
commit are different things ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. It is the first 
time it was ever so decided, I am sure. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. With the 
permission of the Clerical Deputy from Texas — 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I appeal from 
the decision of the Chair. I cannot allow it to go 
out to the world that we stumble on mere insignifi- 
cant things, and that a motion in writing to commit 
and calUng it a resolution changes this order. 
While I have great respect for the Chair, I appeal 
from that decision, and say that the true construc- 
tion of this rule is that no motion or resolution to 
commit is debatable. 

The PRESIDENT. An appeal is made from the 
decision of the Chair. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
On the question of order I wish to make a sugges- 
tion. All this matter was supposed to be settled 



146 



when the question was raised before. The idea of 
those who adopted the rule— at least my idea when 
we adopted the rale— was that a resolution to refer 
any matter to a committee should not be debata,ble. 
When any matter came before the House for action, 
and the mover wished the action of the House, and 
somebody else moved to commit it, that was 
debatable. When a man rose in his place, and 
for the first time introduced a matter to the 
House in the form of a resolution to refer 
it and did not ask anything but a reference, it is not 
debatable. Whether you call it a motion or reso- 
lution, I repeat, when a matter is presented to the 
House, and the person who presents it asks of the 
House to refer it either by motion or resolution, 
when he does not ask immediate action, but simply 
asks that it be referred to the Committee, the idea 
is that it shall not be debatable ; but when a mem- 
ber brings a matter for action before the 
House and it is called up on the Cal- 
endar, and somebody moves to take it 
away from us, and then and there to commit it, 
that is debatable under the first rule, which says 
that all these privileged questions are debatable, ex- 
cept a motion to adjourn and a motion to lay on the 
table, leaving the motion to commit debatable. 
Tiiis very rule, by saying that a motion to recommit 
is not debatable, implies that a motion to commit a 
matter under the consideration of the House, which 
the mover does not ask to be referred, may be de- 
bated. The distinction is very marked ; and 
there is a reason for it. We must look 
at the reason and not at technicaUties. 
When I rise in my place and ask 
the House to permit me to refer to a 
committee a particular subject, the rule says it shall 
not be debated. When I rise in my place here and 
present a resolution or a Canon or anything else^ 
and ask the House to adopt it, and they enter into 
the discussion of it, and somebody moves to take it 
from the consideration of the House and commit 
it, that motion is debatable. That is all that the 
rule is, and the Chair so held before, and such was 
the view, I think, of those familiar with the object, 
the reason, and the good sense of the rule. 

Mr. BURG-WIN, of Pittsburgh. I agree fully 
with the gentleman from Western New York in the 
view that he has taken ; and so much impressed 
have I been with the importance of an amendment 
to that rule to cover the case which now is pre- 
sented to us, that the Calendar of the Secretary will 
show that several days ago I gave notice of an 
amendment to that rule, providmg that 
all messages from the House of Bishops com- 
municating any legislative action on their part 
should be referred to the appropriate committee 
without debate. It was to supply just the very 
omission which now presents itself to the House. I 
think that all communications from the House of 
Bishops should be referred, and, of course, that 
there should be no two debates upon them — one 
upon the question of reference, and one when the 
report of the committee should couje in. 

Rev. M. ROGERS, of Texast Does not the 
gentleman agree with m 3 that imder the present 
rule I am entitled to go on ? 

Mr. BURGWIISr, of Pittsburgh. That is not the 
question now before the House. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the ap- 
peal. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
A motion to amend this rule in conformity with 
the statement I made was considered by the 
gentlemen who drew up the rule, and by the 
Chair, and it was settled that the Chair would 
rule in accordance with the statement I have 
just made, and it would be just as good as an amend- 
ment of the rule. And the Chair so rules, as I 



; understand, that when a matter is introduced orig- 
inally by the mover for the action of the House, it 
cannot be committed on somebody's motion without 
debate ; but where the original mover of a proposi- 
tion asks that it be referred only and not to be acted 
on by the House, it is nofc debatable. The Chair 

; said he did so understand the rule and would so hold ; 
and if he does, I hope the gentleman will withdraw 

, his appeal, for it is altogether the most satisfactory 

i I'ule. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I have no feel- 
\ ing on this subject, but I suggest, I think without 
the fear of contradiction, to all who are conversant 
I with parhamentary law, that when a message 
j comes from one House to another it goes, as a mat- 
! ter of course, without debate, to some committee, 
j unless it be made a special order, or by motion laid 
! upon the table ; and the reason of the rule is appar- 
ent. I understood the Chair to decide that if i had 
moved to resolve to do this, it could not have been 
debated, and because I moved to do it, it was de- 
batable. I am sure the Chair upon reflection will 
■ see that that ruling cannot be sustained. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair very concisely stat- 
I ed the determination to which he had come, not 
giving any reason for it. The reason has been 
; stated by the gentleman from Yi estern New York 
j upon the appeal. It will be recollected that the 
! Chair decided the case, put it out of his own juris- 
diction, and it is before the House, A motion to 
j commit any matter which is already before the House 
j waiting its action, the Chair has decided is debatable 
because it brings up the v/hole merits of the case. 
I It brings up the whole point whether the House is 
I prepared to go on with the consideration of a sub- 
I ject upon which it has already entered, or to put it 
! out of its own power, and send it to a committee. 

That includes, as the gentleman from Texas states 
! in this case, the fate of a measure, and therefore 
! the Chair decided as he has done. The question is 
on the appeal. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I beg leave 
respectfully to differ with the Chair upon what he 
stated was his ground. This House is witness of 
what the Chair said, and the Chair did say emphati- 
cally, that if I had moved a resolution — 

The PRESIDENT. No, no, the Chair did not 
state any such nonsense as that, 
i Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I appeal from 
i the recollection of the Chair to the House, but that 
is immaterial. I want now to hear from the Chair 
upon this point. When a message comes from the 
House of Bishops, and no disposition and order has 
' been taken, do I understand the Chair to say that a 
motion to refer that message is debatable ? 
The PRESIDENT. Messages that come— 
i Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. I rise to a 
' point of order, the first one I ever raised in my life. 
When this case was called first on the Calendar, Mr. 
Rogers had a right to the floor, and no man had a 
right to make any motion without his giving way. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. The gentle- 
man will make his point of order when he gets the 
floor. I am on a question of order. I am perfectly 
willing to have a lecture from the Deputy from 
North Carolina on the question of order ; but he 
must get the floor first to make it, and I am now 
on the floor upon a point of order. I want to hear 
the ruling of the Chair as to what the rule of the 
House is upon a message from the House of Bishops, 
whether a motion to refer it is debatable. 

The PRESIDENT. That question is not before 
us. That is the ruling of the Chair upon that point. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I did move to 
refer it to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution. 

The PRESIDENT. This matter of the message of 
the House of Bishops. has been placed on the Cal- 



U7 



endar, and comes up by an order of the House, to- 
gether with sundry other matters, at twelve o'clock 
to-dav. The question is upon the appeal. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. I move 
to lay the appeal on the table. 

The motion was agi'eed to. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Mr. President, As 
everything invoh^ed in this question is to be con- 
sidered, and legitimately considered, on this motion 
to refer, I will ask the Secretary to read the memo- 
rial of the Bishop and Council of the Diocese of 
Texas, as it is a part of the record. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

"memorial of the bishop and council of the 
diocese of texas. 

" Tb the General Convention of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States of Ame- 
rica : 

" The undersigned, the Bishop of the Diocese of 
Texas and the Council of said Diocese, by its duly 
authorized representatives in the premises, as ap- 
pears by a certified copy of the proceedings of the 
last annual Council, hereunto attached, respectfully 
represent and give this Convention to be informed 
' that the territory of said Diocese of Texas is too 
large for due episcopal supervision by the Bishop of 
said Diocese, and do pray the General Convention 
to set off from said Diocese all that portion of its 
present territory lying westerly and southerly of 
the counties of Matagorda, Wharton, Colorado, 
Fayette, Bastrop, Travis, Burnet, and Lampasas, 
and northerly and westerly of the counties o f Lam- 
pasas, Coryell, McLennan, Limestone, Freestone, 
Anderson, Smith, Gregg, and Marion ; and that 
the said territory so cut off may thereafterwards 
constitute such missionary jurisdictions as the House 
of Bishops may determine. 

" And for further information relative hereto, 
the Bishop and Council of said Diocese do give the 
General Convention further to be informed that 
said Diocese is now found to contain about 270,000 
square miles of territory, of which about 200,000 are 
embraced in 167 organized counties, and the balance 
in territory not yet organized, but rapidly filling up 
with inhabitants and soon to be largely organized 
into thriving counties, towns, and cities ; that the 
number of inhabitants of the Diocese is now about 
1,200,000, exclusive of Indians, of which, should this 
petition be granted, and the territory so set off be 
constituted into two Missionary Jurisdictions, ac- 
cording to the further prayer of your petitioners to 
the House of Bishops, over 500,000 would be resi- 
dents of said Diocese as then limited ; over 400,000 
would be residents of the Northern, and over 200,000 
of the Western Missionary Jurisdictions. 

" Of the 167 counties, 57 would be within the then 
Diocese, 55 within the Northern, and 55 within the 
Western Missionary Jurisdictions — the tract of un- 
organized territory being divided between said Mis- 
sionary Jurisdictions. 

" There are now within the Diocese 39 parishes, 
34 missions, and 32 presbyters and deacons. Of 
these, 26 parishes, 15 missions, and 20 presbyters and 
deacons would be left within the Diocese; 4 parishes, 
9 missions, and 5 presbyters and deacons would be 
within the Northern, and 9 parishes, 9 missions, and 
9 presbyters and deacons within the Western Mis- 
sionary Jurisdictions. 

" The railroads are few and far apart, accommo- 
dating but widely-scattered threads of country. 
The means of locomotion of the greater portion of 
the country are still the stage-coach, the private 
carriage, and the saddle. 

"There are great tracts of inhabited country 
waiting for the blessings of the Church, where its 
services were never heard and the foot of its Bishop 



has never gone, simply because, being human, he is 
confined to the limits of human possibility. 

"Six years ago, by the unanimous voice of its 
Bishop, Clergy, and Laity, the Diocese of Texas 
asked of the General Convention such legislation as 
should give relief from these overwhelming bur- 
dens. The General Convention then responded by 
a radical change of the organic law of the Church, 
but from this change the Diocese found itself utterly 
unable to derive any benefit. Still it could not 
bring itself within its terms. 

" Three years ago, by the unanimous voice of 
Bishop, Clergy, and Laity, it again petitioned 
the General Convention for relief, and at that time 
indicated substantially the same method as now 
herein prayed for. 

"Again "the General Convention responded by 
initiating the proposed amendment to the Constitu- 
tion now pending before this Convention (allowing 
portions of a Diocese too large for the due super- 
vision of its Bishop to be set off into missionary 
jurisdiction). 

" One year ago, at the annual session of the 
Council of the Diocese, when this proposition for 
the amendment of the Constitution came before it, 
the Diocese not only gave its consent, but again, by 
unanimous voice, passed a resolution relating there- 
to, in words following, viz. : 

" ' Resolved, That the Deputies from this Diocese 
to the next General Convention are instructed to 
urge the passage of the said Constitutional Amend- 
ment by that body, and that certified copies of this 
resolution be furnished by the Secretary to each of 
said Deputies before the session of said General 
Convention. ' 

" And now again, after six years of considera- 
tion, and for the same reasons as heretofore, though 
growing constantly more and more important, the 
said Diocese again lays its condition before the Gen- 
eral Convention, and prays for relief ; and not that 
it may be allowed to abandon its legitimate respon- 
sibility or shirk its work, but because here are broad 
and fertile fields abundantly ready for the seed, or 
ripe for the harvest of the Church, which it can 
neither plant, gather, nor abandon. 

"ALEX. GREGG, 

Bishop of Texas. 
BENJ. A. ROGERS, 
W. R. RICHARDSON, 
S. D. DAVENPORT, 
S. M. BIRD, 

Clerical Deputies. 
GEORGE W. JACKSON, 

Lay Deputy. 

" DIOCESE OF TEXAS. 

" The following report, with accompanying reso- 
lutions, was adopted at the twenty-fifth annual Coun- 
cil of the Diocese of Texas, held in Jefferson, May 
28, A.D. 1874— to wit : 

"[Copy of Record.] 
" Report of the Special Committee on the Reduction 
of the Diocese and Increased Episcopal Super- 
vision : 

" The Committee to whom was referred so much 
of the Bishop's address as relates to increased Epis- 
copal supervision for and a reduction of the terri- 
tory of the Diocese of Texas, report that, after a 
careful examination thereof, they fully coincide 
with his opinion therein expressed. We believe 
that the interests of the Church do imperatively de- 
mand such legislation as shall give to the Church 
far more Episcopal supervision than it is possible 
for any one Bishop to render. 

"Our territory is about 250,000 square miles, with 
165 counties. Our railroads accommodate but mere 
far-scattered threads of country. Our population is 



148 



some eleven or twelve hundred thousand souls, and 
to us it is clear that our obhgations as a Church are 
utterly bej^ond our ability as a Diocese. The servi- 
ces of our Church should be carried to hundreds, 

Eerhaps thousands, of villages, hamlets, and neigh- 
orhoods within our borders where now they are 
never heard. 

" Our records show that to divide our Diocese 
into two or more is canonically impossible. To 
avail ourselves of the services of an Assistant 
Bishop, and support him, is equally impossible, and, 
if that could be done, is not desirable. 

"To meet these urgent wants, our Bishop recom- 
mends that the next General Convention be peti- 
tioned by this Diocese to set off all that portion of 
this Diocesan Territory that lies westerly and 
northerly of the following described lines, metes, 
and bounds— to wit : Beginning on Matagorda Bay, 
at the southwesterly corner of Matagorda County, 
thence northwesterly, on the westerly lines of the 
Counties of Matagorda, Wharton, Colorado, Fay- 
ette, Bastrop, and Travis, and Burnet to its point 
of contact with the Colorado River ; thence 
up the middle of said river to the northwesterly 
corner of Lampasas County, and thence north- 
easterly along the northerly lines of Lam- 
pasas, Coryell, McLennan, Limestone, Freestone, 
Anderson, Smith, Rusk, Gregg, Harrison, and 
Marion Counties, to the easterly boundary line of 
the State ; and thence following said easterly 
boundary line of the State of Texas southerly to 
the Gulf of Mexico, and thence following the south- 
erly boundary line of said State, along said Gulf, 
westerly to the place of beginning on the southwest- 
erly corner of Matagorda County ; and that the 
territory lying outside the aforesaid line be taken 
under the care of the General Church ; and that the 
House of Bishops be further petitioned to erect the 
same into missionary jurisdictions and to elect Mis- 
sionary Bishops therefor. 

"Your Committee therefore recommend the pas- 
sage of the following resolutions : 

"Resolved, That the Bishop of the Diocese be re- 
quested, and our deputation to the next General 
Convention be instructed, to petition that body in 
the premises, setting forth that the territory of the 
Diocese is too large for the one episcopal super- 
vision of the Bishop of this Diocese, and praying 
that said Convention will set off all that portion of 
the territory of this Diocese outside the line 
above described, the metes and bounds as above set 
out. 

"Resolved, That the Bishop and said deputation 
are hereby empowered, in behalf and in the name 
of this Diocese, to do any and every thing necessary 
to carry out the foregoing purposes. 

"A true copy from the minutes of the Council. 
"Attest : W. R. Richardson, 

"Secretary." 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I now ask the Sec- 
retary to turn to the questions put to the Constitu- 
tional Amendment Committee, and read the report 
thereon. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I suggest that the 
whole report need not be read. We have it printed 
in our hands. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I will read a por- 
tion of it: " The Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution, to whom was referred a resolution 
directing them to consider and report to this Con- 
vention whether any constitutional amendment is 
necessary to empower the General Convention of 
this Church to set off a missionary territory from 
the bounds of a Diocese, at the request of said Dio- 
cese, duly made known, have given full considera- 
tion to the subject, and respectfully report." 

The first part of the report takes up the interest of 



the Board of Missions in this subject, and here is the 
opinion : 

"The Committee are of opinion, therefore, that it 
does not require an amendment or the Constitution 
to empower the General Convention, through the 
agency of the Board of Missions, and by the pro- 
cesses marked out in the Canons and in the Consti- 
tution of the Society, which may be considered to 
be the Constitution of the Board of Missions, with 
the consent of the Bishop and Conventions of any 
organized'Diocese, to occupy or set apart any por- 
tion of such Diocese as missionary ground. This 
would be a full response to the terms of the resolu- 
tion referred to the Committee ; but it is proper to 
point out that this does not recognize the right of 
the Convention, even with the consent or at the re- 
quest of the Bishop and Convention of any Diocese, 
permanently to dismember a Diocese. Your Com- 
mittee are induced to add this because it has come 
to their knowledge that perhaps something like 
this has very innocently been done, but without 
any committal of the Convention to its lawful- 
ness." 

There have been certain Dioceses organized hereto- 
fore, of which I will speak by-and-by. Now, as 
bearing on the report of this Committee, I beg to 
state still further that the proposition has been 
brought before the Board of Missions, from whom 
the materig,l funds come for the support of the Epis- 
copate in the portion of the territory to be set off, 
and that Board recommend this action : 

"The undersigned, the Committee appointed by 
the Board of Missions by the second resolution, beg 
leave to lay before the House of Deputies the fol- 
lowing action of the Board at a meeting held in St. 
Ann's Church, in this city, on Thursday, October 
23: 

" Resolved, That in view of all the facts set forth 
in the memorial of the Diocese of Texas, and the 
pressing necessity of the said Diocese for the re- 
lief therein asked, this Board of Missions do recom- 
mend the granting of the prayer of said memorial, 
and that the House of Bishops do, at its present 
session, erect two missionary districts, and nominate 
to the House of Deputies two missionary Bishops 
therefor, according to the terms of said petition. 

"Resolved, That a committee be appointed by the 
Chair to communicate the foregoing resolutions to 
both Houses of the General Convention." 

The Right Rev. Bishops Doane, Young, and Tut- 
tle were appointed such committee, and here is the 
proper attestation. 

Six years ago the Diocese of Texas came into Gen 
eral Convention, and for the first time made known 
its condition. For the first time were brought to the 
eye of the Church the facts that the map now be- 
fore you shows, and the other facts relating to the 
working therf^of. At that time the Constitution of 
the Church required that there should be some 
forty parishes left in a Diocese when a portion 
was set off ; that there should be fifteen self- 
supporting in the new Diocese to be formed. The 
view taken at that time was that there must be 
some legislation that should allow the division of 
the Diocese of Texas into two or more Dioceses ; 
and under the pressure of the extreme necessity of 
the Diocese, six years ago was initiated the consti- 
tutional change" that allows a division w-ithout the 
slightest reference to the parishes being self-support- 
ing, a division that shall leave but twelve parishes 
in the old and but six in the new Diocese. 

But there vv^as at that time a provision which an- 
nulled, as far as we were concerned, the whole 
change. It was, that before a Diocese could be di- 
vided there should be secured the support of the 
Bishop, construed to mean a fund or a subscription 
for a fund, the interest of which shall support the 



149 



Bishop for all time to come. The constitutional 
measure was carried three y eai s after, but we re- 
turned to Texas again bound hand and foot. 

There were two reasons vrhy we could not divide. 
The fii-st was, that no legitiniate division could be 
made leaving six ministers on the side of the new 
Ciocese. The other was that there was no way 
under Heaven that we could raise an extra dollar 
to support the Episcopate in the new Diocese. We 
had found it hard in the extreme to support the one 
Bishop that v.e had. So it fell thiough. Three 
years ago under the unanimous instructions of our 
iDiocese we came here and asked substantially 
what we ask now, and we found that 
the Constitution had been created in a day when it 
was never di'eamed that there was to be such an 
outgrowth of the Church, and such enormous fields 
into which she was to push her way, that it never 
mentioned from beginning to end the question of 
Missionary Jurisdictions or Missionary Bishops. "We 
found that the Church, finding herself a± last to do 
something beside divide Dioceses into new 
Dioceses, without a single word in the Consti- 
tution, had embraced and taken up the idea that 
she was free to act for hei^self . that wherever the 
work of God called for our ministry to go, and 
wherever that ministry must be led by the Episco- 
pate, she acted on the gi-ound that she was of age, 
not having limited herself by word or deed, and 
not having mentioned it in any way, she 
by Canon by the action of the General 
Convention supplied the means. Missionaiy 
jm'isdictions were erected all through the 
West and Missionary Bishops were nominated to 
us, and confirmed all through the West, without 
ever having it for one moment sprung upon this 
floor that the Church was not entitled to send her 
Bishops wherever souls were perishing and men 
V.' ere waiting to receive their words. 

Acting upon this we came here and as]i,ed another 
thing, that, with a territory like ours, with a pres- 
sure beyond all conception, with hundreds of thou- 
sands of men, white men, standing 3-ear after year 
and never hearing the voice of the Church, with 
two hundred thousand miles into which the foot of 
the Bishop has never gone, and can never go, sim- 
ply because he is human, and because in the seven 
months when he can ride in the stage-coach by 
night, in private conveyance by day, stopping only 
a day or two in this parish and a deiy or two in that, 
every minute of his time is occupied in visiting the 
few jDarishes and missions, about seventy, that are scat- 
tered thi-oughout the broad eastern portion of our 
State, because this is the fact, and the other parts of 
the territory are never reached. We came and 
asked you to set off, to do as to that temtory 
what you had done as to Bishops, to set 
off a portion of that diocese, not against its 
consent, but with its imanimous voice, no 
voice having ever been heard against it any- 
where, with the direct approval and urging of the 
Bishop at home and here, we the Deputies here 
fully authorized to represent the Diocese asking 
to surrender what it could never touch. We asked 
you to take it, the Church at large to resume into 
its broad arms this enormous territory and give it 
the Church of God. W e were met with the objec- 
tion that there was no Constitution for it. 
I agree there was no necessity for the 
Constitution for it. The idea that such a thing 
should be needed never came to the knowledge of 
the framers of the Constitution, and they neither 
gave it nor refused it. Then we were free. But 
the few men who then urged the necessity of a con- 
stitutional amendment, so far pi'evailed in Commit- 
tee that the representatives of Texas thought it best 
— and California was with us hand in hand — 
to withdraw their claims at that time, and 



allow the matter to go for three years. We 

had another express provision carried through both 
Houses to meet the temporary want. That provi- 
sion was by Canon that wherever a Diocese was ter- 
ritorially so large that the Bishop could not perform 
Episcopal functions, then the Diocese might have 
an Assistant Bishop. We returned with that a fter 
three years, but how were we to have an Assistant 
Bishop i Again the funds necessary to support him 
were an absolute impossibility to acquire, and we have 
remained three years. The constitutional pro\ision 
that was then " by some deemed necessary was 
initiated, but it fell thi-ough by a mere accident in 
the House of Bishops. They failed by forgetfulness 
to carry through their House the initiation of the 
constitutional provision deemed only necessary by a 
few.* Our Secretary going into the records of 
the past, taking what had been acted on in 
this Convention from time immemorial, found 
the law to be that there was no necessity for a con- 
stitutional provision, or that, in case the Bishops 
failed to act, then it became the law, and he sent it 
down to the Dioceses. But we return here. The 
question is sent before the Committee on Amend- 
ments to the Constitution, and they report that the 
constitutional amendment has failed. ISTow we set 
before that Committee the question whether any 
constitutional amendment is necessary, and they 
have repMed in the language I have read you : 

" The Committee are of opinion, therefore, that 
it does not require an amendment to the Constitu- 
tion to empower the General Convention, through 
the agency of the Board of Missions and by the 
processes marked out in the Canons, and in the Con- 
stitution of the Society which may be considered to 
be the Constitution of the Board of Missions, with 
the consent of the Bishop, and Conventions of any 
organized Diocese, to occupy or set apart any por- 
tion of such Diocese as missionary ground." 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. What else do 
they say ? 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I have read it 
once, but will read it again if vou desh-e. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIIS", of Maryland. Read the next 
paragraph. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. "But it is proper 
to point out that this does not recognize the right of 
the Convention, even with the consent or at the re- 
quest of the Bishop and Convention of any Diocese, 
permanently to dismember a Diocese." What does 
that mean ? Once Virginia held Kentucky and other 
portions of the Union, and when her territory was 
cut down she allowed Dioceses to be formed 
without following the ordinai-y rules p^^e- 
scribed by the Constitution. That is a perma- 
nent dismemberment ; it is taking away her terri- 
tory ; it is the organization of a new Diocese. It 
comes in here and disturbs the unity of representa- 
tion. That perhaps might not be done ; but here is 
a temporary matter ; it is a setting off of a mission- 
ary jurisdiction ; it gives no Deputies here to speak ; 
it only temporarily puts this territory in the hands 
of the Church*^ at large, and there will 
be no such dismemberment as affects this 
Convention until in the process of time it is effect- 
ed by the constitutional methods of erecting new 
Dioceses. We do not propose to erect a new Dio- 
cese. In time they will be eligible as new Dioceses, 
and then come in under the Constitution ; but now 
they are not. It is a temporary affair, a mere set- 
ting off of work, rather than a setting off of teiTi- 
tory. It is a giving up of what we cannot touch, 
that the work mav be accomplished. 

Mr. MARTIN, of North Carolina. Thi-ee Bishops 
in the Diocese of Texas — is that to be allowed ? 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. No ; the juris- 
dictions are given off, two to Missionary Bishops ; 
but the gentleman should remember that it is a jur- 



150 



isdiction of work, and not a foot of groimd that 
anybody claims to own. The Church does not do 
that, ^he will build no barracks there ; she will 
erect no forts • she will not turn her guns against 
the Church. She claims to do nothing of that kind, 
but she gives up her work. And now to come 
back — 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Who will have 
jurisdiction of the Diocese ? 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I will answer all 
these questions when I am through, if I am required 
to do so. 

Now as to the necessity. The Diocese of Texas 
contains 268,684 square miles. It has 167 counties; 
it is four times larger than all New England; it is 
six times larger than all New York; it is twenty- 
eight times larger than all New Hampshire; 
it is 205 times larger than Rhode Island; it is 
three times larger than all Great Britain ; it is 
seven times larger than both Belgium and Holland ; 
it is seventeen times larger than Switzerland ; and 
it is larger than either France or Austria ; and that 
is contained within the single jurisdiction of one 
Bishop. There are to-day twenty-five Bishops in 
the eastern territory of the United States doing 
Episcopal work over the same amount of territory 
that one Bishop in Texas is attempting to do. If I 
go into my brother's Church at Jefferson, and 
out at El Paso, where two churches are, I 
shall have travelled a thousand miles straight. 
We have in all the State seventy-three parishes 
and missions. Suppose you allow to each 
of these seventy-three places a Church influence af- 
fecting and controlling thirty-six square miles. I 
first said nine in making my calculation. I said there 
is no minister in this church whose influence is over 
nine square miles, but when I came to put it down 
upon the map it shocked me, and I was so shocked 
that I multiplied it by four. Now jou will allow thir- 
ty-six square miles as influenced by the church in 
each of these parishes and missions, and there is but 
one single mile in every one hundred miles of terri- 
tory affected by the Church. 

Gentlemen, you see that map which is back of 
the Chair. The State of Texas covers the whole of 
the colored portion, all that you see excepting a 
little portion down in the corner which is detached. 
Now, allow thirty -six square miles to be church 
ground, to every one of these parishes and every 
mission, and that upper red square in the 
corner represents exactly the amount of terri- 
tory that we cover by the Church. In that jurisdic- 
tion intended to be set off in the North there are 
1QP,000 square miles. You see here the old Dioceses 
as intended to be reserved (illustrating). Here is 
the contracted Diocese. Here is the western juris- 
diction, and here is the northern jurisdiction (illus- 
trating on the map). As I cannot go over it all, I 
will only take one, stating fii'st that if divided the 
contracted Diocese will contain 500,000 in- 
habitants, with some 60,000 square miles ; 
the western jurisdiction will contain 250,000 in- 
habitants with over 100,000 square miles; the north- 
ern jurisdiction will contain about 450,000 inhabi- 
tants with 100,000 square miles. In that northern 
jurisdiction are 57 organized counties, with four 
hundred and odd thousand inhabitants, with only 
five ministers of the Church. When you 
divide the white inhabitants of that region 
among those ministers, you have 80,000 
souls under the spiritual oversight of a 
single minister, and he ordinarily a deacon. You 
appropriate to each one of those men twenty square 
miles, and more, and that man ordinarily a deacon ! 
And yet in that northern -jurisdiction is the great 
Southern Pacific Railroad, beginning on one side, 
and running through it the whole extent, 
now built about two-tliirds of the way 



through the coimties. Upon our borders 
there are now springing up every week 
in the year farms, villages, and towns. When I 
came here three je&rs ago I reported 800,000 inhabi- 
tants. To-day there are over 1,200,000 inhabitants, 
and most of this gi-owth, or a very large proportion 
of it, is in that noi-thern jurisdiction, I 'have trav- 
elled that country over from end to end — ^from its 
northern borders to its Mexican boundary— 
and the most of it on horseback. I never saw 
in the world so good a territory of cultivable land in 
so large an extent as is to be found in that northern 
jurisdiction clear down through the old Diocese, as it 
will be, and clear on to the Mexican boimdary. When 
I came through there, but five weeks ago, I com- 
pared its fertility, as I saw it in the crop, to the very 
[ best lands of France, to the lands of Belgium, where 
each square mile contains 400 inhabitants, ajid such 
as would give our State 200,000,000 if it came to 
that. I compared them with the dike lands of 
Holland, and I tell you that in my life I have never 
seen anywhere such an extent of land as that. It 
is growing everything from grain to sugar. Every 
possible production that is found in the dif- 
ferent zones of the earth, I believe, is sub- 
stantially found there. There is in mineral 
resources the wealth of the world _ in 
iron, coal, silver, zinc, and gold. I have made it a 
rule in riding over that country to ride over the 
very pinnacle of every mountain that I have ever 
seen, and there is not a mountain that has come 
within my view that I have not ridden over its 
highest point on horseback. The world is going in 
there for its home. Our cattle graze all 
winter without being fed. This I tell you 
because they are the opening for the 
souls of men, because they are inviting the Old 
World and the New, because they are spreading 
forth their acres and giving to view all their pro- 
ductions to your Northern and Western men, and 
you are availing yourselves of them and going- 
there to live ; and yet our Bishop can never enter 
your parishes — you will have none — can 
never enter your towns — simply because 
he is human, I do not know of 
a single ditch except in San Antonio. We are not 
irrigating. Now look at one hundred and sixty- 
seven counties, organized as thoroughly as any 
counties in New York, being represented in the 
Convention, and represented in their Legislature, 
with one million two hundred thovisand inhabi- 
tants, and teU me whether you think it does 
not need this relief. I am asked about the water. 
There are regions out in the extreme West, great 
stock regions, that are poorly watered, but there is 
the great stock-growing region of the continent. 
In New York the other day, if we cannot make a 
stir in this House, our bulls made it in your streets 
[laughter], showing what a country it is for the 
cattle of the world. 

Now one word as to objections. A note comes to 
me saying, "I am told by different members that 
there will be no objection," I avail myself of that 
suggestion ; but I wish to answer a point that I 
know is to be raised. It is to be said, '^Ah, we can- 
not set you off, much as we should be glad to dp 
so." I answer that the Diocese of Texas was consti- 
tuted in 1849. In 1850 a large proportion of terri- 
tory that you now see in that white square in 
the upper part of the map was ceded to the United 
States by the State, and yet it was the Diocese 
of Texas ; the Church in Texas. The Church 
did not propose to go there ; it never did go after 
that. It simplj^ doing what it now asks to do, 
abandoned that territory, and the Church in its 
authoritative capacity took up that territory, erected 
it into missionary jurisdictions, and it has now two 
missionary bishops covering that very territory. 



151 



In 1859 the Diocese of Kansas was admitted upon 
this floor ; its boundaries were coincident with the 
old Territory. In 1861 the State of Kansas was 
erected, cutting off a portion of the old Territoiy, but 
in no way interfering with the lines of the Church. 
The Diocese extended still away out to Denver. 
The Provisional Bishop of Kansas asked another 
Bishop to take charge of it unbil the next General 
Convention — that part which had been cut off. At 
the next General Convention in 1862, it was by the 
action of the House, as fomid in your minutes, trans- 
ferred, cut off, and given to the jurisdiction of the 
Northwest. Prior to 1863 it was found in- 
convenient to do the work of the two Dio- 
ceses of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. There 
was a parish in one that legitimately be- 
longed to the work of the other, and upon 
the request of both those Dioceses and of that parish, 
the General Convention in 1862 transferred the ju- 
risdiction of one parish in one Diocese to the other 
Diocese, carrying it from Massachusetts to Rhode 
Island. In Nebraska the same thing has occurred, 
and in Michigan. I have just had sent me by my 
own Bishop, taken from the minutes of the action of 
the House as given to him by the Bishop of Michi- 
gan, the following fact : 

"When I was elected Bishop of Michigan in 
1836, Michigan was not then a State, but a Terri- 
tory, with a Governor appointed by the United 
States. The Diocese had been organized there a few 
years preceding, aud was not confined to the limits 
of the present State of Michigan ; Deputies were 
present from Green Bay and other parishes of Wis- 
consin. After my consecration, I resigned juris- 
diction over every parish originally so organized, 
Michigan became a State, and at the next General 
Convention I resig-ned jurisdiction beyond the pre- 
sent State, and gave it up to Bishop Kemper," who 
was then the Missionary Bishop, and there he en- 
tered upon his work, and so it has been from that 
day to this. 

Now, I am just through, unless more is to be said 
on the other side. It has been within the province 
of this Church from the beginning to work accord- 
ing to its necessities if it had no constitutional re- 
strictions. It has acted upon the ground that it is 
sovereign in itself for its own work, and when 
a contract is entered into between this 
Convention and the Convention of any Diocese 
the thing is complete. Who can complain ? There 
is not one word on the subject in the Constitution. 
This Church accepts the territory. Our Diocese 
gives it up— simply giving up its woi-k ; and now 
the question is. Had we not better go on for ever 
working without a Constitution, as the old Church 
did, working simply by Canon as it is needed to 
work, rather than at this day, when God has opened 
the whole West to us, we should be trammelled, 
confined, cribbed, stopped from sending the Gospel 
and its messengers to living men, simply because the 
Church might have confined itself by the Constitu- 
tion, but has failed to do it ? 

Mr. BURGAVIN, of Pittsburgh. Mr. President, 
the special motion which is now before the House, 
as I understand it, is simply to refer to the Com- 
mittee on Constitutional Amendments a message 
which was received from the House of Bishops yes- 
terday. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. That was my 
motion, but it was ruled out of order. 

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. Then if I under- 
stand it aright, the whole matter which now stands 
on the Calendar in connection with Texas and Cali- 
fornia is before the House for consideration. 

Mr. ATWATER, of Mmnesota. At the proper 
time I shall raise a question of order in that matter, 
that the Message from the House of Bishops is not 
before this House nor open for discussion. 



The PRESIDENT. The Chair will enquire what 

is the business on tlie Calendar i 

The SECRETARY. The resolution of Mr. Burg- 
win, discharging the Committee. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. And other mat- 
ters have been added to the Calendar to come up in 
connection with that resolution. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. When I read the 
report, the gentleman from Pittsburgh moved, as I 
remember it now, that as there was a standing 
order at twelve o'clock, this report should go into that 
mattei', because a part of that business, indicating 
that there was something before it. 

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. I should like to 
see the record of the order. Dr. Hall is probably 
right, but nevertheless I know of no order which 
has made this message from the House of Bishops, 
which covers a very important proposition, and 
which certain members of the Committee on Con- 
stitutional Amendments think probably we do not 
intend to commit ourselves on, as it involves a 
grave question of constitutional law — I know of no 
ruling that has thrust that matter forward with 
this to receive decisive action without consideration 
by a committee appointed to consider just those 
subjects. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report 
the order of business. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I rise to a question 
of order. The gentleman from Texas has gone on 
at great length and argued the question of whether 
we shall concur in the message of the House of Bi- 
shops. After he has gone througli his argument, 
now a question is raised virtually that he has been 
out of order all this time. I hope the discussion will 
go on in order. I hope the gentleman will address 
himself to the same question as the gentleman from 
Texas. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The question to 
which I proposed to address myself was the motion 
which I made myself when the report of the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution was 
presented to the House without any resolution, and 
upon which I moved that the Committee be dis- 
charged and the report placed on the Calendar, so 
that when reached in its order the whole question 
which was involved in the report of that Committee 
should come before the House. Since that time 
several matters have come before the House of a 
kindred nature, and they, with a view of having 
the whole question discussed when they should be 
reached, on my motion were added to the Calendar 
to come up along with the original motion. 

The PRESIDENT. That is the statement of the 
case as I understood it from the beginning. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Does this debate 
now range over all the questions, or only over th«» 
question of concurrence ? 

The PRESIDENT. The question of concurrence 
does not come first. The question of discharging 
the Committee and bringing up the whole matter 
of this report is the first question to be taken, as is 
stated by Mr. Burgwin ; the other matters were by 
an order of the House put along in connection with 
that report, and with the motion to discharge the 
Committee, because of their being kindred subjects. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. While that is so, I 
certainly cannot be mistaken in this, that the gen- 
tleman from Texas distinctly caUed up off the 
Calendar the message of the House of Bishops, and 
moved to concur in that message, and his whole 
speech has been addressed to that. That was dis- 
tinctly done. Several other matters are on the 
Calendar, germane to this, it is true, but he made a 
distinct motion that this particular message be 
taken up, which thereby gives it precedence over 
other matters. It has been taken up, and argued at 



15^ 



length, and now at this late hour comparatively this 
question of order is sprung. 

The PRESIDENT. The whole matter has been 
taken up. If this report is adopted, it virtually 
settles the question which was argued by the gentle- 
man from Texas. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I am satisfied with 
that if he is. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Mr. President, 
in order to bring the matter clearly and distinctly 
before the House and present my views upon it, I 
modify the motion which I made and which now 
stands on the Calendar by making this addition. I 
move that the Committee be discharged, and I now 
move the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the proposed alteration of Ai'ticle 5 of the 
Constitution proposed at the last General Conven- 
tion, and made known to the several Diocesan Con- 
ventions, and printed on page 201 of the Jom'nal of 
the last Convention, be, and the same hereby is, 
finally agreed to and ratified as provided in Article 
9 of the Constitution. 

" And the House of Deputies further respectfully 
informs the House of Bisliops that the above resolu- 
tion was adopted by a vote by Dioceses and orders. " 

Mr. SHES'FEY, of Virginia. WiU the gentle- 
man allow me to ask what is the motion now before 
the House ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. That the Com- 
mittee be discharged. 

The PRESIDENT. That was the motion, coming 
up in connection, however, with these other mat- 
ters, so that the whole subject was to be brought 
together before the House. This motion to dis- 
charge will be first in order when the vote comes to 
be taken, as I understand. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. I beg leave 
to ask on what day the order was made that all 
these subjects should be taken up together ? 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary wiU inform 
the gentleman. 

The SECRETARY. The record is as f oUows : 

" The resolution offered by Mr. Burgwin was 
made the special order for the eighth day. It was 
subsequently on the twelfth day placed at the head 
of the Calendar, and later on the same day the pre- 
vious report of the Committee was ordered to be con- 
sidered with it. 

"Message No. 34 from the House of Bishops was 
placed on the Calendar last night, and it was sug- 
gested by some member that it be considered in 
connection with this, but no action was taken." 

The PRESIDENT. I imderstand that action was 
taken, but it is not on the record. 

Mr. SHEFEEY, of Virginia. I have again to ask 
the Chair, before the motion proposed or suggested 
by the gentleman from Pittsburgh, what was the 
question be core the House ? 

The PRESIDENT. As it seeins that no record 
was made of the motion to put the message from 
the House of Bishops on the Calendar, in connection 
vdth the other matter, the report from the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution is the 
matter now before us. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. What report ? 

The PRESIDENT. The report of the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution, in reference to 
which a motion was made that the Committee be 
discharged from the further consideration of the 
subject. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I understand the 
Committee is discharged by its report. It makes a 
report without any resolution, and, ipso facto, is 
discharged by the making of that report. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I presume if a 
motion is made to discharge, that motion is put on 
the Calendar by order of the House. 



I Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. If the question then 
be that the Committee be discharged from the con- 
: sideration of this subject, I should like to ask the 
gentleman from Pittsbm^gh to point out the rele- 
vancy of his amendment to that proposition. 
I Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. It is perfectly 
plain to my mind. I moved that the Committee be 
I discharged, simply because they have expressed 
I their opinion and given their argument to the 
i House ; a.nd it is now before the House. If 
we are of the opinion that the Committee are mis- 
taken, we ought to go on and ratify and agree to 
: the proposed amendment, which was submitted to 
1 them, and which they reported had not been consti- 
! tutionally proposed in the last General Convention, 
i I think, if gentlemen will not intei'nipt me, I can 
i state the matter which I now wish to bring before 
; the attention of the House in such a way, at all 
I events, as to make it clearly understood what I 
i mean. 

! Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. Allow 
j me to suggest that obscurity will be avoided if the 
I gentleman v>^ill simply mo ve to disagree to the report. 
I I suppose the question is whether the House agrees 
! to the opinion of the Committee. If the House 
i shall disagree, then the motion to amend the Con- 
5 stitution will be in order. 

; Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I rise to a point 
I of order, and I believe I can make it clear. In the 
i first place came in a resolution, and it was put upon 
i the Calendar, a resolution connected with the re- 
! port of the Committee on Constitutional Amend- 
ments. It is put upon the Calendar. Then the 
; gentleman from Pittsburgh comes in with another 
; proposition, that the Constitutional Amendment 
be ratified, and that is put upon the Calendar, 
to come up at the same time. Then comes in a mes- 
sage from the House of Bishops which underlies the 
j fu'st and perhaps the second, and that is put 
i upon the Calendar also. I rose thi^ morning 
I and asked that the message from the House of 
! Bishops be taken up and disposed of. They are all 
! here for disposition at this time ; but you cannot 
j dispose of three propositions at the same moment. 
I I have been allowed by the House to take up the 
message from the House of Bishops. It is the mat- 
I ter before us, to be decided before the others are de- 
i cided, for you cannot decide three questions 
together. When that is decided, then comes 
i up No. 2, and, when that is decided, 
then No. 3. Now, if the message be 
concurred in, then the Report from the Commit- 
tee on Constitutional Amendments becomes perfectly 
! immaterial. The question raised by the gentleman 
: from Pittsburgh may be material, but not to this 
j issue. It is only to a constitutional amendment 
! for the future in matters that it will touch. 

Now, I say, and my position is this: no gentleman 
I should speak save to the question of the message, 
I When that is decided, the gentleman from Pitts- 
I bm'gh can raise his point nest upon the Calendar, 
I argue it, and get it decided. Then, if the gentlemen 
I of the Committee choose to ask that their report 

should be accepted, they may ask it. 
i Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Have I the right 
i to go on, sir ? 

! The PRESIDENT. I think you can argue the 
' case, but I do not think the motion made by you is 
' relevant to the question before the House, 
i Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. If there was a 
I motion made to concur in the message from the 
j House of Bishops, I did not hear it. 
i Rev. Mr. R.OGERS, of Texas. I made the motion. 
, Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsbm-gh. I did not so un- 
■ derstand ; but I understood that it simply came up 
j because the order of the day had been called for. 
I The Calendar had been called for. The Chair an- 
I nounced that the hour of 12 had arrived, and as I 



understood— but I may be mistaken— then the 
Deputy fi'om Texas, or some other gentleman, in- 
asmuch as the message from the House of 
Bishops referred to the same subject-matter, 
and could be discussed in connection with all 
the other matters then upon the Calendar, asked that 
it be put there, or rather that it be taken up with 
the order of the day as a part of the order of the 
day. I certainly so understood, and I listened to 
his argument with a great deal of interest, and con- 
sidered that it was a part of the argument which I 
had intended to make, but which he so ably 
made as to render it unnecessary for me 
to touch those points ; and then I proposed simply 
to argue on the main issue I had made upon the re- 
port of the Committee on Constitutional Amend- 
ments whether we did not already have a proposi- 
tion for the amendment of the Constitution which, 
upon our adoption of it to-day, would settle all these 
questions finally and for ever. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Allow me to make 
a statement. I rose and stated the fact that three 
things were upon the Calendar set for the same 
time, and I moved that the message from the House 
of Bishops be taken off, and then said : "When it 
is taken up, I further move that it be concurred 
in." 

Mr TAYLOR, of Virginia. I wish to make a sug- 
gestion. We are all very anxious to despatch the 
business of this House. Mow I hope I may be pardon- 
ed for the suggestion I rise to make. As I under- 
stand the case, the question before this body is 
whethei- we shall give to Texas these missionary 
jurisdictions ? It is supposed there is a constitution- 
al difficulty in the way of doing this. At the last 
Convention a constitvitional amendment was propos- 
ed, but owing to the adjournment of the House of Bi- 
shops without action that constitutional amendment 
failed ; and if a constitutional amendment had been 
necessary Texas would be delayed another term of 
three years. Then we raised a Constitutional Com- 
mittee, composed of the ablest lawyers of this House, 
not to report any action, but they have reported to 
this House as their deliberate opinion that there is 
no constitutional difiicuity in the way, and, as my 
colleague from Virginia has already said, that does 
not require the action of the House, but 
the House can vote upon concurrence or 
non-concurrence in the proposition to give Texas 
a missionary jurisdiction. If it believes a constitu- 
tiona,! amendment is necessary, it will vote against 
concurrence on that ground. If it is not necessary, 
members vv^ill vote for the proposition on its merits. 

I submit, therefore, that the question of consti- 
tutionality is not before this House, and there is 
no propriety in making that question now. All 
will be satisfied, and all views will be 
answered, if we confine ourselves to letting the 
question before the House be, Will we concur in the 
action of the House of Bishops ^ I say again, those 
who think we cannot constitutionally do it will 
vote against it ; but when a committee of able law- 
yers report their opinion to us who have asked their 
opinion, it seems to me the quickest way is to take 
the question on whether we shall concur in the mes- 
sage of the House of Bishops. 

Mr. BURGWIM, of Pittsburgh. I have no objec- 
tion to confining myself to any question which the 
Chair now says is the only one bef ore the House. 

P.ev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. In order 
that the gentleman may go on without im- 
pediment, let me state that the Committee 
on Constitutional Amendments have reported 
that this thing can be done in a certain 
way. Members of that Committee, as I suppose 
from certain things that have happened, are doubt- 
ing whether the Bishops have put their resolution 
into language to do it in that way. Therefore, if 



ou do concur with the language of the House of 

ishops before the Committee have consented to 
that language, you are not doing it in the v/ay the 
Committee have suggested. That is the difficulty 
in their minds. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I understand 
that, and intended to bring it to the attention of 
the House. The House of Bishops in their message 
provided simply for the Diocese of Texas : 

"That the General Convention hereby signifies 
its consent and agreement to the limitation of the 
Diocese of Texas, as hereinbefore described, and 
that so much and no more of the State of Texas as 
lies within the aforesaid limits is to be regarded and 
known as the Diocese of Texas. " 

If that resolution means anything, it means that 
from and after the passage of this Canon the Diocese 
of Texas is dismembered. A portion of its territory 
is set apart for ever without the power of retraction 
by the Bishop and Convention of the Diocese, for 
missionary purposes, or is made a part of a jurisdic- 
tion which may adopt the Constitution and come 
into this Convention as a Diocese. 

Now I call the attention of the House to the 
report made by the Committee on Amendments 
to the Constitution, for whom I have individually 
and collectively the most profound respect. I call 
the attention of the House to the closing portion 
of then- report, found on the bottom of page 
3, in which they say, after setting forth the 
mode which they are of opinion can be adopted for 
carrying out the general purposes set forth in the 
memorials to the Board of Missions : 

" This would be a full response to the terms of 
the resolution referred to the" Committee ; but it is 
proper to point out that this does not recognize the 
right of the Convention, even with the consent or 
at the request of the Bishops and Convention of 
any Diocese, permanently to dismember a Diocese." 

If that means anything, it means that this Com- 
mittee have very grave doubt as to the constitution- 
ality of the proposed Canon from the House of 
Bishops, and it seems to me that it would be treat- 
ing that Committee with disrespect when they have 
put upon our records a doubt at least which 
they entertain v/ith regard to the validi- 
ty of this Canon in case it should be passed. It 
would be treating that Committee at least Vvith dis- 
respect to concur in a Canon which has been sent 
down from the House of Bishops without giving 
them an opportunity of considering that particular 
question and reporting their opinion upon it. 

Now, Mr. President, if I have been out of order 
in presenting the views that I have with regard to 
the constitutional question which was, as I thought, 
before the House, I hope I may be called to order. 
But the reason why I think it is in order is, that it 
is inexpedient now to concm- with the House of 
Bishops upon a point involving, certainly, serious 
doubt, when we have it in our power, 
by the passage of a simple resolution, 
to put this whole question beyond all doubt. 
At the last General Convention, memorials similar 
to this which have now been commented upon by 
the delegate from Texas were before that body. 
They were referred to the Committee on Canons. 
They received our anxious and careful consideration. 
We all recognized the importance, the vital impor- 
tance, to Texas and California of providing a 
remedy. 

A subcommittee was a,ppointed, and we heard the 
gentleman from Texas, and also the Clerical Deputy 
from California, now Assistant Bishop of North 
Carolina. The objection was then made that the 
remedy which they asked the Committee to apply 
was not constitutional, for the reason that the Gen- 
eral Convention had no power to dismember a 
Diocese permanently. Such a proposition could 



154 



certainly not have passed through that Com- 
mittee. But with a view, if possible, of meeting 
the difficulty and supplying the remedy, that Com- 
mittee carefully and cautiously provided a Canon 
which they reported to the House, which Canon will 
be found in the Journal of the last Convention, page 
81, in which, by reading it, it will be seen that the I 
Committee avoided the difficulty suggested ; and 1 
may here say that even in the adoption of this Canon 
it was very difficult to calm the scruples of some of 
the members who were rather strict construction- 
ists. At all events, tJie Committee agreed to report 
it. The gentlemen who had still, I may say, 
scruples, agreed not to force their own peculiar 
views on the Convention, but to let the matter pass 
sub silentio, so far as they were concerned. That 
Canon provides not only to meet the case of Cali- 
fornia and Texas, but also the case of a Diocese 
where the Bishop is for a time under a disability 
or where there is no Bishop. In those cases, and as 
in the cases of California and Texas, where 
there is a part of a Diocese which the Bishop, 
by reason of its extent or from physical impedi- 
ment, cannot fully exercise the functions of his office, 
the territory may by the consent of the Convention 
of such Diocese, and with the consent in the latter 
case of the Bishop thereof, be placed under the 
Episcopal charge and authority of the Bishop of 
another Diocese or of a Missionary Bishop, reserv- 
ing to the Convention of the Diocese and the 
Bishop the right at any time thereafter to re- 
tract that consent, and return to their former 
condition. This Canon was accepted by the 
Deputies from California and Texas as being 
sufficient in their view to meet the case. It was 
adopted by the House of Deputies, went to the 
House of Bishops, and was there adopted. There- 
upon, i believe upon the same day that this Canon 
was adopted in the House of Bishops, a constitu- 
tional provision v/as presented to this House from 
the Committee on Canons, was passed and sent to 
the House of Bishops upon the eighteenth day of 
their session, remained there the eighteenth, nine- 
teenth, and twentieth days. It will be found on 
page 201 of the Journal, providing that : 

" The General Convention may, upon the applica- 
tion of the Bishop and Convention of an organized 
Diocese setting forth that the territory of the Dio- 
cese is too large for due Episcopal supervision by 
the Bishop of such Diocese, set off a portion of such 
Diocesan territory, which shall thereupon be placed 
within or constitute a Missionary Jurisdiction, as 
the House of Bishops may determine." 

Tiiat was proposed as an amendment to the Con- 
stitution because it was then seen that it was too 
late to rely upon meeting the question by Canon, 
and that these two Dioceses must at least wait three 
yea.rs. That was presented, as I said before, in the 
House of Bishops. 

The PRESIDENT. The hour for the recess has 
arrived ; but before it begins I wish to correct a 
misapprehension in regard to a ruling of the Cliair 
a while ago as to the point now immediately before 
the House. I did not rule that a motion to commit 
the message or anything else to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution was out of order. 
I only ruled that the motion was de- 
batable, and, as Mr. Burgwin is aware, 
stated to him outside of the House that that 
was the particular motion before us, bringing up in 
refei'ence to the effects of that motion the general 
question. This being the state of the case in my ap- 
prehension now, I will endeavor during the recess 
to examine the records, and place the matter in a 
proper way before the House when it recommences 
its session at two o'clock. The recess will now be 
taken. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I agree with 



the Chair in his recollection. My recollection is 
that the only subject now before the House is the 
motion to commit the message of the House of 
Bishops to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution. The Chair will remember, when the 
order of the day was called, this report was 
decided to be at the head of the Calendar. 
The Deputy from Texas moved to take up the 
message of the House of Bishops which was not 
reached in its order. I moved to refer it. The ques- 
tion then came up whether my motion to refer was 
debatable, and the Chair held' that it was, and the 
Deputy took the stand. 

The PRESIDENT. That is the case. The House 
will now take a recess until two o'clock. 

The House resumed its session at two o'clock p.m. 

MESSAGES FROM THE BISHOPS. 

A message (No. 35) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolutions : 

"Resolved, That this House concurs in Message 
No. 24 of the House of Deputies, and elects the 
persons named in the report of the Joint Committee 
to Nominate a Board of Missions as members of said 
Board." 

The following message (No. 36) was received 
from the House of Bishops : " 

" The House of Bishops informs the House of De- 
puties that it has adopted the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That Canon 5 of Title III. be amended by substi- 
tuting in place of Clause 11 of Section 3 the follow- 
ing clauses : 

"[11] No clergyman shall be allowed to take 
charge of any such congregation until he shall have 
been nominated by the Bishop in charge, and have 
been approved of by the Standing Committee pro- 
vided for by this Canon, and when such appoint- 
ment shall have been- accepted by the clergyman so 
appointed, he shall be transferred to the jurisdiction 
of the Bishop in charge. 

" [12] The Bishop in charge may at any time, 
v/ith the consent of a majority of the Standing Com- 
mittee, dissolve the connection between the rector 
and any such congregation. Provided, that three 
months' notice of such dissolution shall be given to 
the clergyman and congregation. 

CLERGYMEN CHARGED WITH OFFENCES. 

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia, from the Com- 
mittee on Canons, submitted the following report : 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom it was re- 
ferred to consider and report on the expediency 
of so amending sub-section [3] of Section VII. of 
Canon 12, Title I., of the Digest, as to provide for 
the case of a clergyman being charged with 
'offences for which ministers may be tried and 
punished,' committed prior to his removal to 
the Diocese to which he now belongs, but which 
have not been the subject of investigation or trial, 
respectfully report that they have considered the 
same, and that it appears to them that an amend- 
ment of Canon 3, Title II., will sufficiently meet 
the cases contemplated in the resolution referred. 
They therefore recommend the adoption of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That Section 1 of Canon 3, Title II. of the Digest 
be amended so as to read as follows : 

" Sec. 1. If a clergyman of this Church belonging 
to any Diocese or Missionary District shall have 
conducted himself in any other Diocese or Mission- 
ary District in such a way as to be liable to present- 
ment under the provisions of Canon 2, Title II,, the 
i ecclesiastical authority thereof shall give notice of 
I the same to the ecclesiastical authority where he is 
canonically resident, exhibiting with the informa- 



155 



tion given reasonable ground for presuming its cor- 
rectness. If the ecclesiastical authority, when thus 
notified, shall omit, for the space of three months, 
to proceed against the* offending clergyman, or 
shall request the ecclesiastical authority of the Dio- 
cese or Missionary District in which the offence or 
offences are alleged to have been committed to pro- 
ceed against him, it shall be within the power of the 
ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese or Missionary 
District within which the offence or offences are al- 
leged to have been committed to institute proceed- 
ings according to the mode provided by the Con- 
vention thereof, and the decision given shall be 
absolute." 

The PRESIDENT. The report will be placed on 
the Calendar. 

CANON OF RITUAL. 

Mr. BURGWm, of Pittsburgh. I ask leave of 
the House to present and read the report of the 
Committee on Canons upon the Ritual question. 

The PRESIDENT. Will the House grant leave ? 

Leave was granted. 

Mr. BURGrWIN read the report as follows: 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom were referred 
resolutions adopted by the Diocesan Conventions of 
Kansas, Kentucky, and Virginia, a Memorial from 
the Rev. John A. Wilson and others. Resolutions 
presented by a Clerical Deputy from Louisiana, and 
three Canons relating to the subject of Ritual, re- 
spectfully report that we have given thorough and 
careful consideration to the foregoing Memorials, 
Resolutions, and Canons, and to the important sub- 
jects to which they refer. We are quite aware of 
their magnitude and weight, and of the deep so- 
licitude on aU sides with which is regarded our 
action in the premises and that of the Convention. 

" In entering upon the discussion, we found 
among ourselves, as was naturally to be expected, 
great diversity of opinion as to the proper mode of 
dealing with a matter which has been the source of 
so much trouble and anxious thought in the Church ; 
yet we were united in the opinion that the evil must 
be met, and in the determination to use our utmost 
effort to meet it fully and effectually. In order 
to this, we recognized the necessity that all of us, 
so far as could be done without a sacrifice of princi- 
ple, should yield to some extent our individual 
views, both as to the real nature of the evil and as 
to its true remedy ; that all of us should leave our 
own peculiar standpoints in the circumfer- 
ence, approach one another, and meet at the 
common centre. This we have done, and ' 
we now present you with the result of our earnest 
and prayerful labors. When we consider the diver- 
sity and contrariety of our several views on many 
subjects closely connected with that now before us, 
and then consider the remarkable unanimity with 
which this result has been reached, this Report be- 
ing agreed to by every member of our Committee, 
we feel assm-ed that it has been under the guidance 
of that Holy Spirit who maketh men to be of one 
mind in a house, and without whose aid our labor is 
in vain ; and we trust that the still further result 
will be the removing of doubts, the quieting of 
anxieties, the driving away of false doctrine, and 
the restoration of peace to our Household of Faith. 

" ' Oh! pray for the peace of Jerusalem; they shaU 
prosper that love thee.' 

"The Committee, therefore, unanimously recom- 
mend the adoption of the following : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That 
the following additional section be added to Canon 
20, Title I., 'Of the Use of the Book of Common 
Prayer ' : 

" Sec. II. [1] If any Bishop have reason to believe, 
or if complaint be made to him in writing by two or 
more of his Presbyters, that ceremonies or practices 



during the celebration of the Holy Communion, not 
ordained or authorized in the Book of Com.mon 
Prayer, and setting forth or symbolizing erroneous 
or doubtful doctrines, have been introduced into a 
parish within his jurisdiction (and, as examples, the 
following are declared to be considered as such : 
' ' a. The use of Incense. 

" b. The placing, or carrying, or retaining a cru- 
cifix in any part of the place of public worship. 

" c. The Elevation of the Elements in the Holy 
Commrmion in such manner as to expose them to 
the view of people as objects towards which adora- 
tion is to be made. 

"d. Any act of adoration of or towards the Ele- 
ments in the Holy Communion, such as bowings, 
prostrations, genuflexions, and all suchlike acts not 
authorized or allowed by the Rubrics of the Book of 
Common Prayer), it shall be the duty of such Bishop 
to summon the Standing Committee as his Council 
of Advice, and with them to investigate the matter. 

" [2] If, after investigation, it shall appear to the 
Bishop and the Standing Committee that erroneous 
or doubtful doctrines have in fact been set forth or 
symbolized by ceremonies or practices not ordained 
or authorized as aforesaid, it shaU be the duty of 
the Bishop, by instrument or -uTiting under his 
hand, to admonish the Minister of the parish to dis- 
continue such practices or ceremonies; and if the 
Minister shall disregard such adm.onition, it shall 
be the duty of the Standing Committee to cause 
him to be tried for a breach of his ordination vow. 
Provided, that nothing herein contained shall pre- 
vent the presentment, trial, and punishment of any 
minister under the provisions of Section I., of Canon 
2, Title II., of the Digest. 

" [3] In all investigations under the provisions of 
this Canon, the Minister whose acts or practices are 
the subject-matter of the investigation shall be noti- 
fied, and have opportunity to be heard in his de- 
fence. The charges preferred and the findings of 
the Bishop and Standing Committee shall l3e in 
writing, and a record shall be kept of the proceed- 
ings in the case. 

" By order of the Committee, 

" WM. COOPER MEAD, 

^'Chairman. 

"October 23, 1874." 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I do not propose, 
Mr. President, in presenting this Canon now, to in- 
troduce it with any remarks in the way of a speech, 
but simply to say, in addition to what has been said 
in the report, that taking advantage of the resolu- 
tions which have been passed by the House of 
Bishops and concurred in by our House, providing 
for joint meetings of the two Committees on Canons, 
we have conferred with the Committee on 
Canons of the House of Bishops, have presented to 
them the Canon which we have now proposed, and 
have received from that Committee the assurance 
that it would receive their unanimous sanction if 
we passed it and sent it to their House, and that they 
will recommend their House to adopt it on their 
part. 

I now move, sir, that this report, with the Canon 
proposed, be printed for the use of the members, 
and that its consideration be made the special order 
of the day for Monday next at meridian. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The Hymnal 
is fixed for two o'clock on Tuesday. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I prefer the mat- 
ter of the Hymnal should not be mixed with this, 
because if one is fixed for twelve, and another for 
two o'clock,, there would be a squabble for the floor. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, pf Long Island. I suggest, then, 
that this be fixed for two o'clock on Tuesday. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I have no ob- 
jection if the House choose. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to print this 



156 



Canon, and make it the order of the day for Mon- 
day, at twelve o'clock. 
The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. HALL^ of Long Island. I submit that 
at two o'clock on Tuesday the subject of the Hym- 
nal be the order of the day. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. As cognate 
to that matter I should like an amendment 
which I want to offer also printed. It is short. 

Mr. BURGWIIST, of Pittsburgh. I do not think it 
is the right of a member to rise and present a Canon 
or anything else, and have it printed, in connection 
with the report of a Committee. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I ask the privi- 
lege of the House to offer it for information. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I withdraw my 
motion in order to allow the gentleman to go on. 

DIOCESES BECOMING MISSIONARY TERRITORY. 

Mr. BURaWIN, of Pittsbm-gh. Mr, Presi- 
dent — 

The PRESIDENT. We have entered upon the 
order of the day now. I want, as I promised, to 
unravel the questions of order growing out of the 
order of the day. The first mistake was made by 
myself, and I believe the Secretary was of the 
same opinion, that the message from the House 
of Bishops, numbered thirty-four, had been or- 
dered on" the Calendar nest to the report of the 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. 
That was only an impression. There was something 
said about that, but in the confusion of the adjourn- 
ment it was not done. Therefore that message is 
not now before us except by the virtual mo- 
tion of the gentleman' from Texas which 
has been seconded, but which was not put to the 
House, and requires a two-thirds vote to take up 
that message and consider it. The message not be- 
ing before us, the motion to commit by the 
gentleman from Kentucky was out of order. 
I will now entertain the motion to take 
up the message, and if it is taken 
up by a vote of two-thirds, as I hope it will be in or- 
der that we may get along with the despatch of bus- 
iness, then the motion to commit will be in order. I 
would further state, as was stated by the gentleman 
from Long Island (Rev. Dr. Hall) that this message 
from the House of Bishops, not being in conformity 
with the recommendation of the report of 
our Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, 
the motion to commit will be a very proper motion 
in order that they may conform the action of the 
House of Bishops to this report. That being the 
state of the case, the first question will be. Will the 
House take up out of its order the message from the 
House of Bishops (No. 24) ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. May I ask what 
effect will that have, if it be carried, on the discus- 
sion now going on ? Does it cut off the debate now 
under way, or lay the motion by, simply to take it 
up and put it on the Calendar in connectioji with 
the matters which are now before the House 
under the order of the day ? It seems to 
me that is the way which I understood 
to be the decision of the case when I 
began the remark I was making. The whole 
matter was before us for discussion in any 
aspect which might be presented, because by 
having all these different questions before us we 
can apply our argument to one or the other with a 
view of putti::/j the speediest and most effec- 
tual termination to this question which we all feel 
so much interested in, and in regard to which we do 
not differ among om^selves, except as to the best 
method of procedure. If this message be taken up, 
and we then have the whole subject-matter before 
us to be disposed of, I am satisfied. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. The two sub- 



je its differ very widely. The Deputy from Pitts- 
burgh will see that they ought not to be taken up 
until the message of the House of Bishops goes to 
the Committee on the Constitution. 

The PRESIDENT. I had already ruled that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pitts- 
burgh, in reference to the effect of the action of the 
last Convention on the constitutional question, was 
not relevant to either the message from the House 
of Bishops or this report. I think that ought to 
come up as a separate Question. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Is not that very 
question the order of the day now before the House, 
and is not the motion of the gentleman from Texas 
to take up this message an interposition into our 
proceedings of a separate motion which ought not 
to have been entertained ? 

The PRESIDENT. The actual motion before the 
House was on this report of the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution. We are consid- 
ering that. 

Mr. BURG-WIN, of Pittsburgh, That is the ques- 
tion to which I am addressing mvself . 

The PRESIDENT. But a motion has been made 
by the gentleman from Texas to take up the mes- 
sage of the House of Bishops, and if two-thirds of 
the House concur in taking up that message, it will be 
before us. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. Allow me to answer 
that question. He made that distinct motion, and 
no objection was made, and, therefore, I say it is 
too late for this ruling after he had made an argu- 
ment of an hour's length by the consent of the House. 

Rev. Mr. ROGER'S, of Texas. It does seem to 
me that after the floor has been assigned me by the 
ruling of the Chair upon the ground taken by my- 
self, the first and pertinent thing before this House 
was the message; it is placing that message and me 
personally in a very embarrassing situation. I under- 
stand the motion to be to refer that message to the 
Committee on Constitutional Amendments. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Will the gentle- 
man yield for a moment ? There is not the slight- 
est doubt that this House will take up the message of 
the House of Bishops, and then let the motion of the 
gentleman from Kentucky be acted on. 

The PRESIDENT. I think that would be much 
the best way. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. There is to be 
no debate on that question of reference ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Then I object. 
I claim that I had the floor at the time of recess, 
and wish to proceed with the remarks I was making. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I suggest to 
the Deputy from Pittsburgh that it will not take a 
minute to refer the message, and then he can have 
the floor. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The Chair says 
that will be subject to debate. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western Nev/ York. 
I think there is a misundeistanding. It is not 
proposed, when this report comes up, that it shall 
supersede the motion of the gentleman before us, 
but it comes up immediately after that is voted on ; 
it does uot supersede it, but comes up in connection 
with it. The first question before the House is the 
report of the Committee on Constitutional Amend- 
ments, and that the gentleman has the floor upon. 
It is proposed in connection Avith that, not to super- 
sede it, but take up the message of the Bishops, and 
as soon as it is taken up, I think the House will 
make such disposition of the matter that the gentle- 
man from Texas will get the relief he wants. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh.- I do not like to 
trust the House always on a question of debate. 
When they have an opportunity of debating a 
question, there is so much anxiety to discuss it that 



157 



I do not wisli to open that door. The gentleman 
from Kentiickv moves to commit. The Chair has 
decided that that motion is debataljle, and we know 
not to what leno:t]i that debate may carry us ; and, 
as I am in the middle of an argument, I would pre- 
fer to finish what I have to say, and then the House 
mav take sitch disposition as they think proper. 

Mr. STEVENSOISr, of Kentucky. I think the 
Deputy has the right to do it, and I hope he will go 
on. 

Mr. BURGWTJST, of Pittsburgh. When the House 
took the recess, I was following up the pi;oce?s of leg- 
islation at the last General Convention. After the 
Canon adopted by the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies had beeii negatived by the House of Bish- 
ops, the only remedy which the House thought 
would meet the case was a change in the Constitu- 
tion. Accordingly, they proposed a change by vote 
of the House. It will be fovmd on page 360 of the 
Journal of 1871. This proposed Constitu- 
tional Amendment provided for the cases of 
California and Texas, and was presented to 
the House of Bishops on the eighth day of 
the session. There was no action taken upon it by 
the House, that House having adjourned upon the 
twentT-first dav, making parts of three days. 

Mr.^COMSTOCK, of Central New Y6rk. The 
House of Deriuties adjourned on the twentieth day. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pennsylvania. But the House 
of Bishops had this proposed constitutional amend- 
ment before them from the nineteenth day, and 
they adjourned on the twenty-first day. That 
raises a very important constitutional question as 
to whether that proposed amendment was in fact 
proposed under the terms of the Constitution, so that 
if we think proper to do so we may now finally rati- 
fy and agree to it. The question arises under Ai-- 
ticle 3 of the Constitution, which provides : 

"And in all cases the House of Bishops shall sig- 
nify to the Convention their approbation or disap- 
probation (the latter with the reasons in waiting, 
within three days after the proposed act shall have 
been reported to them for concurrence ; and in fail- 
ure thereof it shall have the operation of a law." 

That question was referred to the Committee on 
Constitutional Amendments, and they have re- 
ported that, in their opinion, it did not come within 
the terms of the Constitution: in other words, the 
proposition failed because the House of Bishops ad- 
journed before three full days had expired 
after they received this message from the 
House of Deputies. The proposition which 
I maintain, with the most profound respect 
for the gentlemen who compose that Com- 
mittee, is that, upon the failure of the House of 
Bishops within the time which they certainly did 
set after receiving our act, that act became an act of 
the House of Bishops for want of their action. 
This, of course, is a question of legal construction. 

Rev. Mr. MARPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. 
There was no House of Deputies to which they 
could return it. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I say it is a 
question of legal construction; and in this connec- 
tion, I wish to draw the attention of the House to 
the difference which exists between our constitu- 
tional nro-^nsion and that of the United States. 

Mr. STEVEIn'^SON, of Kentucky. Allow me to 
suggest to the Deputy that he take up the question 
whether he does not exclude one day and include 
the other; and if he adheres to that rule, then there 
were not three days. 

Mr. BIJRGWIN, of Pittsburgh. My agreement 
is entirely aside of the question of time. I claim 
that under the terms of this Constitution, were a pro- 
position presented within five minutes of their ad- 
journment, to take an extreme case, it becomes a 
law if they faU to act. I go to that extent. Of 



course my argument goes for nothing if it does not 
prove that. The Constitution of the United States, 
which, you will bear in mind, was proposed by the 
Convention in 1787, two years before the adoption 
of our Constitution, provides : 

" If any bill shall not be returned by the President 
within ten days (Sundays excepted), after it shall 
have been presented to him, the saane shall be a la.w 
in like manner as if he had signed it, miless the Con- 
gress, by their adjournment, prevent its retrain, in 
which case it shall not be a law." 

I am not familiar with the Constitutions of the 
different States of the United States, but I am with 
that of the State of Pennsylvania, where a veto is 
given to the Governor. In that State the provision 
is, that if the bill be presented to the Governor 
within a limited time, he shall have until three days 
after the next General Assembly shall have met, and 
within those three days he must return the bill with 
his approval or his negative, showing, as I claim, 
that v>^here it is intended that the party to whom 
the bill is presented for approval is to have 
the full term, under all circumstances, it is 
necessary to pnt such a clause in the Constitution ; 
otherwise we are to be governed by the lav/ as it is 
wiitten. Our Constitution, drawn up two years 
after the Constitution of the United States, provid- 
ing for a similar matter, leaves out that provision, 
and says absolutely, in so many words, without ex- 
ception, if the biiror act is presented to the Bish- 
ops, and they do not return it in three days, it has 
the effect of law. Therefore on the letter of the 
Constitution I claim that this act, having been pro- 
posed to the Bishops and not having been re- 
turned within the three days, has the effect of a 
law. 

I do not rely upon the argument alone, but I 
think that this question has been put at rest as a 
matter of precedent by the General Convention of 
this Church. In 1853 this same question arose. 
There was a difference between the House of 
Bishops and the House of Deputies in regard to a 
certain Canon which had been passed by the pre- 
ceding General Convention, but had been presented 
to the Bishops, I believe, upon the da^y of their ad- 
jourmnent, and by oversight they took no action 
upon it. The question arose at the next General 
i Convention whether or not that was a Canon 
of the Church. A Committee of Conference 
I was appointed, and I call the attention of the House 
to the names of the members of that Committee of 
; Conference. It consisted of Drs. Hanckel, An- 
I drews, and Craik, and Mr. Huntington, of Connec- 
j ticut. Chief Justice Ruffin, of North Carolina, who 
j upon questions of this kind was beyond all praise as 
I a jurist and a strict constructionist, of whom it is 
not necessary for me to say a word here. Two of the 
Committee of Conference of the House of Bishops 
were Bishop Hopkins and Bishop Doane ; 
Bishop Hopkins, it may not be known, before 
he applied for orders, was one of the most 
eminent lawyers in the State of Pennsylvania. He 
stood in the foremost rank of the foremost lawyers 
of his day. He was a man, not likely when he 
reached the House of Bishops, to yield any matter 
which concerned the rights and prerogatives of the 
House of Bishops. This Committee presented a 
unanimous report to both Houses, in which they 
say : 

"The Joint Committee of Conference, having 
traced upon the Journal of the Convention of 1850 
the Canon ' Of Ministers removing from one Diocese 
to another,' find that Canon to have been deliberate- 
ly discussed in both Houses and by a Committee of 
Conference between the two Houses, and to have 
been so amended as to contain the provisions now 
i incorporated into the Canon proposed as a sub- 
I stitute for the Canon XXX. of 1832, by the House 



158 



of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and, as so amended, to 
have been passed as a substantive act by the House of 
Clerical and Lay Deputies, duly communicated by 
message to the House of Bishops, and not subse- 
quently acted on by that House, and therebv, by 
the terms of Article III. of the Constitution, to have 
acquired the form of law in the Church, but, by a 
failure of the Secretaries to notice the fact, not to 
have been numbered and placed among the Canons 
of that General Convention." 

That Canon, I believe, was presented to the House 
of Bishops on the last day, or the day before the 
last. The report is signed : 

"JOHN H. HOPKINS, 
" Chairman of the Committee of the House 
of Bishops. 
"CH. HANCKEL, 
" Chairman of the Committee of House of 
" Clerical and Lay Deputies." 
On motion of the Rev. Dr. F. VINTON, 
" Resolved, That the report of the Committee of 
Conference be accepted." 
And so in the House of Bishops : 
" Which, on motion of Bishop Hopkins, seconded 
by Bishop Whittingham, was accepted. " 

I claim, therefore, not to extend this argument to 
any greater length, that by the unanimous action of 
this General Convention establishing a precedent, 
v/e have the right now, acting on that precedent 
and observing the rule of stare decisis, so important 
a one to be observed, especially in legislative bodies, 
to regard this question as closer!. Indeed, unless 
in the clearest of cases, where there can be no doubt 
that it may be presumed that the House who estab- 
lished this precedent were acting hastily, without 
due consideration, we have not the moral right to 
set aside that precedent, and leave it still an open 
question with one decision for and another 
against. The rule to which I have alluded I be- 
lieve is held by the courts indisputably, that where 
deliberately a judicial body" or a convention 
after examination have adopted a construction of a 
particular law or constitution, that v^^ill be followed 
except in the clearest cases ; and I think after hav- 
ing called your attention to the difference between 
the Constitution of our Convention and the Con- 
stitution of the United States, upon the same sub- 
ject-matter, where the difference is so evident be- 
tween what is there provided that in order to ex- 
tend the time it must be specially provided for, and 
we, with that Constitution before our eyes, having 
decided it, it is to be presumed intentionallv, we at 
least cannot say that the construction put on it by 
the Committee is not so clear as to justify'- this 
House in setting aside this precedent, and then leav- 
ing it an open question. I understand that that 
question was strictly before the Committee of Con- 
ference to whom that matter was referred. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. That was the change 
of a Canon. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The Constitution 
applies to both the same. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I beg to en- 
quire of the learned Deputy, because the authority 
is not Imown to us here and we have not the Jour- 
nal, whether both Houses remained three days in 
session in the case referred to. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The Canon of 
1850 was presented on the last day of the session of 
the House of Bishops, and that question was the 
question upon which the Committee of Conference 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. Has the gen- 
tleman read it ? It was because the Secretary had 
failed to embody it. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The fact that the 
Secretary had failed to embody it called for a reso- I 
lution to put it in. ' 



Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Was the Con- 
ference Report agreed to ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Yes, sir; that 
Conference Report was agreed to in both Houses, 
and since then the Canon, which was the subject 
matter of that discussion, has appeared on our books 
as a Canon of this Church. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. The difference 
is that at the Jast Convention there was but one body, 
and this House did not I'emain in session three days, 
in order to let the House of Bishops exercise its 
constitutional power of sending back its non- 
concurrence or concurrence in writing, a power 
which the Constitution guarantees. That is very 
different from a Committee of Conference, for there 
both Houses act. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I beg pardon ; 
the gentleman does not understand the case. The 
Committee of Conference had simply before them 
the question as to whether this Canon had been 
passed at the last preceding General Convention. It 
was not the report of the Committee on Conference 
on the Canon. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Allow me to 
state one fact. The act that was passed in the 
House of Deputies and the other House in regard to 
that had been thoroughly discussed through the 
whole body, and it was finally passed on the report 
of a Comrnittee of Conference, the House of Depu- 
ties acting on the Conference report, and the other 
House not. That is the point I want made. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I cannot see the 
force of the gentleman's argument, so far as it goes 
to the construction of the clause of the Constitution. 
The Committee of Conference of 1853 found their 
report upon the single fact that this Canon of 1850 
had been passed by this House as a substantive act, 
had been reported to the House of Bishops upon the 
last day of their session, and that they had 
not acted upon it after it had been reported, and 
that thereby under the provision of the Constitu- 
tion which I have just read, it acquired the force of 
law. It matters not how frequently it may have 
been discussed in either House before that, the whole 
thing depends upon the question whether the House 
of Bishops were entitled to three full days or 
not under the Constitution. That was the 
only point upon which this Committee of 
Conference of 1853 had to pass, and they reported 
it to both Houses, and their report was accepted and 
approved. The Canon of 1850, reported to the 
House of Bishops upon the last day of their session, 
and not acted upon by them at the time, was held 
under the provision of the Constitution to have ac- 
quii-ed the force of law. That was the point I wish- 
ed to make. 

Rev, Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Permit me to 
ask the Deputy a question. Suppose that the House 
of Deputies should send a message of that kind with 
a completed act to the House of Bishops, and then 
should forthwith adjourn, and the House of Bishops 
should continue in session one or two days after 
that, to what body could they return the act if they 
wished to return it with a negative ? 

I want to state also a fact in connection with 
this question. In 1871, the House of Deputies ad- 
journed on the twentieth day and the House of 
Bishops adjourned on the twenty-first day. Con- 
sequently, if the House of Bishops had perfected and 
attempted to send back to the House of Deputies 
their negative of this change, they had no oppor- 
tunity to do it. The House of Deputies had cut 
them off. 

I hold, relative to the session of 1850, that there 
was a simultaneous dissolution of the two Houses. 
We received the House of Bishops and had the clos- 
ing exercises, and forthwith they returned to their 
House and adjourned, and our House did the same 



15§ 



thing, with the exception of passing one ordinary 
resolution, relative to printing, I believe. The two 
Conventions were verv different in 1871 and 1850. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I fail to see the 
difference in point of principle. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I say to the 
gentleman that thi-ee days are allowed by the Con- 
stitution, and if we deliver an act five minutes be- 
fore the adjom-nment and the other House receive 
it, and then within five minutes both Houses simul- 
taneouslv adjourn, it falls to the ground. 

Mr. BURG-WIN, of Pittsburgh. I presume their 
simultaneous adjournment is always in pursuance 
of a previous resolution to adjourn. Each House 
passes a resolution to adjourn, and adjourns when 
the time arrives. The point I make is, that when 
our action is presented to the House of Bishops, 
and they do not act upon it, do not do what they 
can to comply with the terms of Constitution, it 
becomes a law. 

That is all I have to say in regard to that point. I 
may add, however, that the Secrf tary, as I am in- 
formed by him, acting upon this precedent, and 
assuming that this proposed change had been acted 
on virtually by each House, did communicate, as it 
was his duty to do, to all the Dioceses of the Church, 
the fact that such a proposed amendment had been 
adopted, and therefore the Secretary, in point of 
fact, did communicate this proposed change to the 
different Dioceses, as required by law, and is pre- 
pared to say that it was received. He can correct 
me if I am wrong. 

The SECRETARY. I communicated the pro- 
posed change, following the precedent of 1853, and 
received official notification from the Secretaries 
of all the Conventions, and from every Bishop hav- 
ing Diocesan jurisdiction, that they had received 
notice of the same. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsbm^gh. We are there- 
fore in a condition now, if the House should 
sustain the view I have presented, to ratify 
and agree to that proposed amendment, and if 
agreed to by the House of Bishops it ends this whole 
question in "a constitutional wa,y, and the Diocese of 
Texas or California or any other in like 
condition may avail itself immediately of 
the provision of that proposed change, and 
remove from this House the discussion and de- 
termiriation of all the doubtful questions which 
have been presented to us by the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution, where they report 
in favor of supplying a remedy through the Board 
of Missions, which I confess is something so new 
to me that I have no opinion on it either one 
way or the other as yet, and also remove what is 
certainly a very doubtful question in regard to the 
vahdity of the Canon which comes to us from the 
House of Bishops, which proposes, without any con- 
stitutional change, to dismember the Diocese 
of Texas by contracting its limits to certain 
specified lines, leaving beyond those lines 
a large amount of territory, with no pro- 
vision whatever made as to what shall become 
of it. That would be an objection if there were no 
other to the adoption of this Canon. It is un- 
derstood — so I have been told by members on the 
floor — that the House of Bishops intended the terri- 
tory left out in the cold to be a missionary jurisdic- 
tion, but there is not one word said of that in the 
proposed Canon. 

Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Allow me to suggest 
that it could not be said because they have a work 
by themselves, which this House have nothing to do 
with. They erect Missionary Jurisdictions. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. But the ques- 
tion would stiU meet us as to the Diocese of Texas, 
which has been a Diocese recognized by this Con- 
vention, whether, if we contract the limits of the 



State, that portion lying beyond these boundaries 
will be a Missionary Jurisdiction under the control 
of the House of Bishops, or v/hether it is not still a 
portion of the State of Texas, and as such entitled, 
when it has six clergymen and six self-supporting 
I^arishes, to come before this Convention and claim 
to be a Diocese. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. Let me ask a ques- 
tion to meet a difficulty on my mind. If our House 
pass an amendment to the Constitution and adjourns 
the next day, the gentleman contends that under the 
Constitution of the Church the House of Bishops 
cannot return it to us. But if that is so in one 
instance, why not the second time { Why can we 
not at this session pass something the day before 
we adjourn, send it to the Bishops, and adjourn the 
next day, and at the next General Convention again 
three years hence, wait imtil the day before the ad- 
journment and pass the same subject the second 
time and adjourn and give the House of Bishops no 
opportunity to act ? Does not that resolve itself 
: into this, that this House can effect most fundamen- 
1 tal changes in the Constitation v/ithout any action 
1 on the part of the House of Bishops '. 
\ Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The gentleman 
I proposes an extreme case, and it is said that ex- 
I treme cases make shipwreck of the law. Of course, 
i that is the logical conclusion of the argument I have 
! made. The gentleman's argument would be a 6 m- 
convenienti. It may be that our Constitution leaves 
i us in that condition, that this House may take ad- 
[ vantage of the House of Bishops by what T suppose 
I would be called a pious fraud, and send them a con- 
i stitutional amendment or a Canon with the view of 
I having it go into effect by the impossibihty of ac- 
tion on the part of the House of Bishops. . I antici- 
pate no such result. 

Rev. Mr. BBOWN, of Michigan. May I ask if 
it is not in our favor in the last case ? We have had 
i a three days' session here, and does not this objec- 
j tion applv'^to the proposition now presented ? 
j Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The gentleman's 
i idea is that we might, if intending to get advantage 
! of the House of Bishops, hold back our action until 
I a few minutes, perhaps, before they are to adjourn, 
and then throw into that body a mass of legislation, 
and they, not being able to act upon it, it would be- 
come law. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I would like to ask 
any gentleman whether in any legislative body 
v/hatever concurrent action is not required ^ 

Mr. BURGV7IN, of Pittsburgh. The Journal says : 
" On motion of the Rev. WiUiam Stevens Perry, 
D.D., of the Diocese of Western New York, it was 

" Resolved, That a committee be appointed to 
wait upon the House of Bishops, and inform them 
that tills House has completed the business before it, 
and desires respectfully to enquire if the House of 
Bishops has any further business to transmit to this 
House. 

" The President appointed the Rev. Dr. Perry as 
the committee to wait upon the House of Bishops." 
I Further on, 

" The Rev. Wilham Stevens Perry, D.D., of the 
j Diocese of Western New York, the committee ap- 
pointed to inform the House of Bishops that this 
1 House had concluded the business before it, reported 
[ tiiat the committee had discharged the duty as signed 
I to it, and that the House of BishojDS had no further 
I communications to transmit to this House." 

Showing at least that the House of Bishops was 
informed that this House was about to adjourn, 
and sent back a message that they had no further 
action ; and it certainly strengthens the argument 
by showing that they were not taken by surprise, 
aiid that they were not forced by the sudden action 
i of this House to act unadvisedly, or let the matter 
i have the effect of law. 



160 



Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. This i 

House cannot adjoui'n without the consent of the 
House of Bishops, so that if we send a thing- up at 
the last moment they can keep us in session. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I understand 
the practice to be always before this House ad- 
journs to send such a message as I have read to the 
House of Bishops, asking if they are ready to ad- 
journ, and whether they have any further busi- 
ness. 

Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. They 
have it in their power to hold us in session until 
they can act. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I think so prac- 
tically. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. They did 
actually hold us in session four or five hours after 
that time until another Committee was appointed, 
and then they adjourned. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. This com- 
munication was presented to them on the nine- 
teenth day, aud they did not adjourn until the 
twenty-first day. All this discussion simply goes 
to show that in this particular instance there was 
no intention to impose on the House of Bishops, 
though of course that does not touch the argument. 
The ""gentleman from Georgia asks me whether 
this House would have the right to pass an act 
and send it to the House of Bishops at the last mo- 
ment, and compel them to act upon it at the risk 
of its becoming a law unless they did so. My 
answer is, that that is an argument ab ineonven- 
ienti, and ought not to be taken into considera- 
tion in the construction of the Constitu- 
tion. If it be so, then the matter lies 
in our hands, and we may propose a change of the 
Constitution by which the Bishops shall have, if we 
think proper to give it to them, three full days be- 
fore such a law shall go into eif ect. But having no 
such clause in our Constitution, I claim that we must 
be bound by the words which are there. 

Therefore, Mr. President, to bring my remarks to a 
close, in the viev/ which I have i3 resented to the House 
all we have to do is to pass the resolution which I 
have read, that this Constitutional Amendment has 
been proposed under the tenor of the Constitution 
in the Convention of 1871 — because it does not 
require that it shall pass, but that it was pro- 
posed there — and that we now, assuming that 
it has been proposed, by a resolution rati- 
fy and confirm it as such. If that be agree ! 
to by the House of Bishops — and I think 
with the precedent before them we have no reason 
to anticipate any objection upon their part, espe- 
cially as their action in so doing will remove this 
whole difficulty and enable these Dioceses, without 
any constitutional objection, and in the way which 
the;/ most require, to attain the object which they 
seek — this House would show its wisdom in follow- 
ing that system and adopting that resolution. 

Rev. Di\ ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I would ask 
the gentleman if this precedent of 1853 would be a 
law before the House of BishoDS ? 

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. The question has 
not been brought before the House of Bishops, be- 
cause it does not get there until we send it. Whether 
it was brought distinctly before the Committee on 
Constitutional Amendments, I do not know. I am 
informed that this was the first question whieh came 
before them. Whether they gave a long time or a 
short time to the examination of precedents, I am 
not aware. They have given us, I believe, no rea- 
sons for the position which they take in i-eporting to 
the House that it was not passed at the last Conven- 
tion, so as to entitle this House to now adopt it. 
The Committee, of course, can answer for them- 
selves as to what amount of consideration they gave 
it— whether it was upon deliberate consideration, 



1 after the examination both of the Constitution and 
precedents, or whether it was adopted as a matter 
of first impression. 
Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota, obtained the floor. 
Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. Was 
not the adjournment governed by mutual consent ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. It was governed, 
I presume, by the general law that where there is a 
Convention composed of two houses, neither can 
adjourn without the consent of the other. I know* 
that has been the practice, and I presume it has been 
so held. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Both 
Houses adjourned by mutual consent, but the House 
of Bishops sat as a council on the twenty-fii'st day. 
It sat as a council and acted as a council. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Suppose this 
declaration of ours, that the amendment has con- 
stitutionally passed, goes up before tiie House of 
Bishops, and the House of Bishops disagrees with 
us, is this House ready to appoint a Committee of 
Conference, before which Committee of Conference 
shall be placed the arguments we have heard this 
day with regard to the validity of the passing of 
this amendment ? I may say that I think the 
gentleman who has had the ^oor has distinctly 
shown that we have a legal precedent, and the 
arguments of those who have opposed his 
view have gone solely on the fact that tiie Constitu- 
tion should be more certainly defined with regard to 
the three days. I may say that the posi- 
tion which he has taken is precisely the 
position with regard to thi'ee days that 
is taken in the Scriptures. Our Saviour — 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
must rise to a point of order. If gentlemen can 
seize the floor and begin an argument without hav- 
ing the floor assigned to them, we shaU never get 
through. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Wiscon- 
sin is out of order. He commenced by asking a 
question, but is making a speech. 

Rev. Dr. AD AIMS, of Wisconsin. I beg to apolo- 
gize. Still — 

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Burgwin, I thought, 
yielded the floor, and the Chair recognized the gen- 
tleman from Minnesota (Mr. Wilder). 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I have not 
yielded the floor, but I simply intended to reply to 
the query of the gentleraan from Massachusetts 
(Rev. Dr. Burgess). He stated that the House of 
Bishops only sat as a Council upon the last day. I 
do not find it so to be, because a^mong the proceed- 
ings of the 21st day is the following : 

"The House met at a quarter-past nine o'clock, 
pursuant to adjournment. 
"Present," etc. 

' ' The House being bidden to prayer, the Bishop 
of Wisconsin read a portion of Scripture, and the 
Bishop of Ohio offered prayers. 

"The minutes were read, and, on motion, ap- 
proved. 

"Message No. 89, from the House of Clerical and 
Lay Deputies, being called up, 

" On motion of the Bishop of Maryland, it was 
"Resolved, That a Committee of three members 
of this House be appointed," etc. 

Showiag that the House of Bishops upon that day 
did sit as a co-ordinate branch of the General Con- 
vention. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Now 
turn to page 382 ; 

"The Bishop of Western New York offered the 
following I'esolution : 

" Resolved, That the Bishops will meet in Coun- 
cil to-morrow morning, October 27, at half-past 
nine o'clock. 

" The resolution was adopted. Ayes, 81; noes, 3. 



161 



" The Bishop of New Jersey, from the Committee 
on the Closing Services of the Convention, presented 
a report proposing an order of services, wMch order 
* was adopted." 

And in another place it wiU be found that agree- 
ment was made to adjoum. 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. I rise to a question 
of order. We are having speeches within speeches, 
and we are not going to get through at this rate. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I do not think 
it is at all important whether they had two days or 
three days or an hour. 

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Wilder is entitled to the 
floor. 

Mr. WILDER, ©f Minnesota. I sought the floor 
under the impression that the first question before 
us is the motion to commit the message of the House 
of Bishops to the Committee on Constitutional 
Amendments. Am I right in that, or not ? 

The PRESIDENT. No, sir, you are wrong. The 
question now is upon the report of the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution, and Mr. Burg- 
win's resolution discharging the Committee. In ad- 
dition, Mr. Burgwin has now moved, as an amend- 
ment to his own motion, the ratification of the Con- 
stitutional Amendment, and that is the question im- 
mediatelv before the House. 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. The proposition, 
then, if I understand it, is the question that arises 
upon the report of the Committee on Constitutional 
Amendments, to the' effect that that proposed 
amendment of the Constitution three years ago 
failed ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir, that is the report. 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. Under that state 
of facts, remarking in the first place that when the 
question arises, if it shall arise by-and-by, 
to commit the message from the House of 
Bishops to the Committee on Constitutional 
Amendments, I may desire to be heard ; but upon 
the question, as the matter now stands, I yield to 
Judge Comstock, who was the author of the report 
that is before us. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. Is the 
question upon the adoption of the resolution of the 
gentleman from Pittsburgh i 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir, the first question is 
upon his amendment. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I wiU 
make a few obseiwations upon that in explanation 
of the action of the Committee on Amendments to 
the Constitution. I beheve we are all agreed that 
a Constitutional Amendment requires the successive 
action of two Conventions, which implies that first 
it must be the valid act of the first Convention ; in 
other words, it must have the concurrence of both 
Houses, or else it must become a law by the failure 
of the House of Bishops to signify their concurrence 
or their non-concurrence within three days. That 
was the question referred to the consideration of 
the Committee on Constitutional Amendments. 

The facts are briefly these, as they appeared be- 
fore the Committee : The amendment was passed 
by the House of Deputies three years ago on the 25th 
day of October, and was sent tlie same day to the 
House of Bishops. On the following day, to wit, the 
26th of October, the House of Deputies adjourned 
finally, and on the next day, that is, the second 
day, the House of Bishops also adjourned. The 
article of the Constitution which is brought 
especially imder consideration declares that 
the acts of this House shall become laws imless the 
non-concurrence of the Plouse of Bishops be signi- 
fied back to this House within three days after they 
have received the message. It was the opinion of 
the Committee, not upon a careless consideration, 
but upon a careful one, that .that provision of the 
Constitution fairly impLLed that the House of Bi- 



shops were to have the whole of three days, 
or at all events, if they were prevented from 
having the three days by the action of 
this House in adjourning, the act of this House did 
I not become a law ; in other words, that this House 
I was bound to remain in session, and give them that 
I constitutional period of three days for the consider- 
i ation of the message sent to them. Upon that 
I ground, one carefully considered by the Comnlittee, 
they were of the opinion that the amendment fell 
to the ground ; and, therefore, although it was 
: erroneously notified to the Diocesan Conventions, 
; it was not in a condition for this present Conven- 
\ tion to act upon. 

\ Now, without saying much about precedents, I 
think I may fairly submit it to the common sense 
of this House, lawyers, laymen, and clergymen, 
that under a Constitution which reads like that, 
the other House of this great legislature fairly 
has its right to three days to send back its mes- 
i sage to this House of concurrence or non-con- 
currence, and that if we intercept that right 
by breaking up our sitting on the next or the 
[ day following, then the measure has fallen to 
the ground. It seems to me that the common sense 
I of every mind will come to that conclusion, 
j A precedent has been spoken of. I am 
I not very familiar with aU the cii-cumstances of that 
! precedent, but I think it will be found that the ex- 
1 act question was not brought fairly under consider- 
! ation then ; in other words, that it was never ad- 
I judged upon a solemn argument of the ques- 
\ tion. That is enough. Sir, as a lawyer 
I and some time as a judge, I know something 
of the value of precedents, but there is no iron 
; rule that they should be always adhered to. The 
i law is at extremity, trying to get right, and if it 
1 does not get right the fii'st time, it tries again until 
I it gets down to a firm and solid basis, where it 
will stand forever. If some former Convention 
has inadvertently passed a measure in derogation of 
I these views, I say this House liad better consider 
! that question. 

I And I am very sure of one thing, that whatever 
; may be the judgment of the House on this question, 
the other House never would concur in the views of 
this rule which have been presented by the gentle- 
i man from Pittsburgh. He carries the argument to 
■ the extreme extent that if we pass a measure and 
send it to the House of Bishops and adjourn in five 
minutes, before they have time even to take it up 
and vote on it, it has become a law of the Conven- 
tion. Precedent or no precedent, I think that ex- 
travagant and absurd ; and yet that is the inevita- 
ble consequence if his views are to be held. 

I think this states the whole case, Mr. President, 
and I do not wish to multiply words upon it. These 
were the carefully-matured views and judgment of 
the Committee. I may add also that unanimously 
the Committee are prepared to abide by them. 

Mr. WOOLWORTH, of Nebraska. I will ask the 
gentleman if the report of the Committee was not 
unanimous ? 

i Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. It was. 
Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. Mr. President, 
it is proposed to be governed in this case by the pre- 
, cedent of 1853, and I must submit that that would 
: be so far from the rules of common sense that I never 
will assent to any such construction. When laws, 
either forming Constitutions or Canons, are passed 
or ordained, from the very nature of them they never 
can be so expressed as that there will be no doubt 
about their meaning. If every word in our 
language had a decided meaning, and no other, 
then such might be the case; but we all know that 
that is thoroughly impossible. When these Consti- 
I tutions. Canons, or laws come before us for con- 
i struction, we have certain rules to guide us to a 



16^ 



proper conclusion in relation to assigning the true 
meaning of the language in such Constitution, 
Canon, or law. The first is to enquire what is pro- 
vided for in the Constitution or Canon, and then 
the precise form of words adopted in those Consti- 
tutions, Canons, or laws. 

Now, what is the case here ? Every Canon and 
every Constitutional Amendment must be concurred 
in by both Houses in order to become effectual. It 
must be passed in tins House and then sent to the 
other. You can see that if a Canon was passed by 
the House of Deputies aud sent to the House of 
Bishops, and no hmitation of time was fixed in the 
Constitution, and it was not returned, it might 
always fail for the want of a return from 
the House of Bishops. That is in the 
nature of a bill originating in the House of Re- 
presentatives, and sent to the Senate. In order to 
meet that, the Constitution fixed three days as the 
limit of time for the House of Bishops to act. Why 
was that adopted ? Certainly, to give the House of 
Bishops an opportunity to consider it, and after due 
consideration to return to us the result of their de- 
liberation. Nobody can doubt that such was the 
purpose of that provision. 

Now, the gentleman^says if we pass a Canon and 
send it to the House ol Bishops, and then if we ad- 
journ in five minutes, it will not affect it. I ask this 
Convention wliether that is not contrary to com- 
mon sense. It is impossible in the very nature of 
the case for them to give it any kind of considera- 
tion. Would this House become the sole legislature 
of this Church ^ It cannot be ; but if the gentle- 
man's position is correct, we cannot come to any 
other conclusion. There is no such thing 
as this House passing a Canon alone. There 
is a provision in the Constitution, that in 
three days, if not returned with or -without concur- 
rence, it shall become a Canon of the Church. This 
is expressed carefuUy on account of the right of any 
question to be heard, it is true everything was not 
put in our Constitution, but it was proposed to give 
the other House three days for the necessary consid- 
eration of a Canon, and f oi* what purpose That at 
the end of that time it might become a law, or if 
returned with objection be done away with alto- 
gether. Certainly this House of Deputies is not the 
whole legislat:ire of the Church, and I shall not give 
my assent to any such proposition. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I am sorry to differ 
with the distinguished gentleman from Pittsburgh 
at any time, particularly upon a question like tiiis, 
which is practically one in the future of so much 
importance. But before going further I wish to say 
of this memorial from Texas, that in my opinion 
the gentleman was further from the mark'in no part 
of his argument made to this House than when he said 
he considered the vote on this proposition as control- 
ling the memorial from Texas. They are entirely dif- 
ferent and controlled by different rules entirely. One 
is an amendment to the Constitution of the Churcii, 
and the other has been reported by the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution, and requires 
no Constitutional amendment at all. And the gen- 
tleman must allow me to say that the parallel he 
drew between the proposed action here and that of the 
Convention of 1853 produces no parallelism at all, in 
my humble opinion. That, in the first place, was 
not legislation so far as we can see from the pro- 
ceedings he has read, notwithstanding the distin- 
guished names that bore out that report. The 
name of Judge Ruffin, of North Carolina, was, I 
believe, at the head of the report. It was entire- 
ly apparent from their reading of the Constitution 
that either those gentlemen must have had before 
them some circumstances we do not now see, or 
for some reason it was not maturely considered. 

But, sir, that was no amendment to the Consti- 



tution of the Church. That was an entirely minor 
and inconsiderable matter. It was merely the pass- 
ing of some Canon — what Canon he did not state — 
where they might possibly iiave strained the con- 
• struction of the Constitution in order to put that 
i Canon in position. Is that the case here ? What 
1 do we propose to do here now ? We propose 
now to change the fundamental law of this Church, 
! the Constitution of this Church, not only to 
i operate for this one occasion, but, Mr. President, 
i when we recollect the large expanse of our coun- 
! try, the whole missionary field, the arrangements 
that must exist both in Texas and Cahfornia, and 
Vfcirious jurisdictions in the future, this is going to 
be a great question, and it is insisted that we shall 
! be controlled by precedent in our fundamental law. 
I Most assuredly not. Constitutions do not stand on 
. anything of this sort. What are precedents and 
I how are they esteemed ? What do legislators do 
with precedents i When in a Constitution or in some 
other paper which is to be considered, whether by a 
court or'bj' a legislature, the language of that paper 
I is doubtful, and it is submitted to a committee, or 
passed upon by court, legislature, or what-not, a 
; precedent has been established, because it may read 
I one way as well as — or almost as well as — another 
I way. Then, when the precedent is followed and 
I you add precedent to precedent and construc- 
! tion to construction for a series of years, pre- 
cedent has then the force of law, because, as the 
distinguished judge of New York says, it rests then 
I upon a solid and sound foundation. 
I But what have you here What is this prece- 
j dent ? It is a precedent upon a minor matter. It 
I was established, it is true, by distinguished gentle- 
! men. Thei'e are only six of them, however, in num- 
j ber ; and what do we offer here as an offset to 
I that ? In the first place, we offer the report 
1 of our Committee — a committee of twelve 
instead of six — a committee which, although 
I they are hallowed, so far as I know them, by 
I their distinctions and memories, yet I think our 
I present Committee in future will be just as much 
hallowed in their distinctions, which is as great as 
that which rests on those gentlemen who have gone 
before. Now we present their report, which cannot 
yet be said to have matured into a precedent. It 
was never acted on but once. Before that we never 
had any such action. Since that we never had. 
; And now when we submit this same question to our 
i distinguished Committee,f or they are a distinguished 
I Committee, and they are twice as large as the f or- 
\ mer one, they report against the precedent, and I 
] say they are certainly entitled to as much weight as 
the original decision of the Committee of 1853. Now 
I let us start out anew. I set off this report against 
i the former report. What is the language of the 
I Constitution ? So plain that no two men, it seems to 
j me, can doubt. The proposition is to change the 
i Constitution, which is in this plain and simple lan- 
I guage : 

" And in all cases, the House of Bishops shall sig- 
] nify to the Convention their approbation or disap- 
probation (the latter with their reasons in wi'iting), 
[ within three days after the proposed act shall have 
i been reported to them for concurrence ; and in 
failure thereof, it shall have the operation of a law." 
j What are the facts ? It seems that at our last ses- 
I sion we vv ent through the forms required by law, so 
I far as this House could, to cause this change in the 
■ Constitution. On the 25th day of October we sent 
i that to the other Plouse, and on the 26th, the very 
I next day, we adjourned, so that they could not have 
j the three days to consider. The gentleman 
i from Pittsburgh, and some other gentlemen, 
j seem to thinli that these three days are 
a matter of convenience to the House of 
1 Bishops. Not at all ; that is not the idea. The idea 



163 



is much graver than that. The idea is that these 
questions of amendments to the Constitution are al- 
ways grave and important questions. The House of 
Bishops have grave and important questions before 
them at all times, and three days, a very short time 
too, must be allowed to them to make up their 
minds in discussing and maturing measures. 

Now, the gentleman says, if it is sent to them 
within five minutes before their adjournment, we 
having performed our part of the work, and they 
failing to act, although we adjourn in five minutes, 
and there is nobody here to send it back to, yet it 
is a law. And another gentleman suggests 
that our House does not adjourn without 
sending to the other House for consent, and 
it is said that the House of Bishops by 
declining to unite in our resolution to adjourn on a 
certain day may hold us until they have time to act 
on all the business on their Calendar. This is let- 
ting the Constitution of the Church stand on mere 
courtesy between the two Houses, for I am ignorant 
of any provision either in the Constitution or 
Canons of the Church that inhibits this House 
from adjourning without the consent and 
assent of the House of Bishops. I say 
it is only an act of courtesy that we adjom-n with 
them. I say more than that, but I have views pecu- 
culiar on this subject. I claim this to be our 
Church, par excellence our Church — I mean the 
Church of the laymen. I have heard several here 
talk about various matters referred to the clergy or 
Bishops. I say no, so long as I have life I will cling 
to this Church as a layman and as the Church of the 
laymen par excelleyice, but I still say, notwithstand- 
ing these extreme views, so long as I sit in conjunc- 
tion with the House of Bishops, whom I respect and 
honor, this courtesy should be extended ; but when 
I come to fixed constitutional rights, and this is the 
foimdation of the whole structure which we are 
building here — I say it must not stand upon cour- 
tesy, it must stand upon plain, legal writing, upon 
plain language which does not need construction ; 
it must be in the fundamental law, in the Constitu- 
tirn, and not in courtesy. 

The gentleman says that the proposition I sub- 
mitted to him was an extreme case. Not so extreme 
a case as he put himself ; and he went on to say 
that he did not care how extreme the case was. If 
we passed something and sent it to the House of 
Bishops and adjourned in five minutes afterwards, 
and they did not retirni it to us, it would have the 
force of law, if we passed it again at the next 
session. That necessarily resolves itself into this, 
and I will put a case a little more extreme, and there 
is no escape from it on his proposition. Say at this 
very time, we, the Clerical and Lay Deputies, had 
begun to change the whole frame and organization 
of our Church ; suppose we determined to do away 
with the House of Bishops and abolish it. Accord- 
ing to his construction, we have a right to do it. 
Just as we are going to adjourn, we pass a proposi- 
tion to amend the Constitution by abolishing the 
House of Bishops in toto. We send it to them; I 
then disperse and go home in a few minutes. At ! 
the next Convention we go through another such 
exhibition, and just as we adjourn, we pass for the 
second time the proposition to change the Constitu- 
tion by abolishing the House of Bishops, and then 
adjourn. Would the House of Bishops he, abolish- 
ed ? I say no. Let us go on not only according to 
the plain meaning of this provision of the Consti- 
tution, but let us go on with the dignity and cour- 
tesy that belong to our body, and certainly in so 
fundamental a matter as this, of fixing the Consti- 
tution, do not let us be driven to such extreme cases 
as the gentleman has suggested. I do hope this re- 
port will be adopted with unanimity. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts,. Mj, 



President, I wish to bring before the House some- 
thing that I think will do away entirely with the 
precedent brought foi^ward by the distinguished 
Deputy from Pittsburgh. The Constitution pro- 
vides that the House of Bishops must return within 
three days a measure with their objections to it 
in writing. A case occurred in 1850, and I 
was present in that Convention as well as 
in that of 1853. The point that was raised was not 
that the House of Bishops did not return a measure 
v/ithin the three days, but that they did not return 
it with their objections in writing thereto. The 
House of Bishops did actually return the message 
within the three days' time, non-concurring with 
the House of Deputies, but failed to 
give their reasons for their non-con- 
currence ; and the matter was brought 
up at the subsequent Convention of 1853 on that 
very point. The Canon was the Canon on Clerical 
Residence and Removals. The House of Clerical 
and Lay Deputies passed a Canon providing that 
clergymen moving into a Diocese should be receiv- 
ed, in general terms, unless some objection 
could be brought against them, so that 
they could be presented for trial. The 
Bishops had before acted upon the sup- 
position that they could prevent a person from 
taking a parish in their respective Dioceses. This 
was a matter which the Presbyters of the Church 
had at heart, and so had the Laymen also. The 
House of Bishops non-concurred with this provision, 
and asked a Committee of Conference. A Com- 
mittee of Conference was granted, and that 
Committee presented a report which wa.s accepted 
in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
but was laid on the table in the House of l^shops. 
The acceptance of it in the House of Deputies having 
come before the House of Bishops, the House of 
Bishops then non-concurred in the passage of the 
Canon, and that passage was sent down to the House 
of Deputies. Then the House of Deputies allowed 
the report of course to stand. Three years sub- 
sequently they brought it up, and then a motion was 
made that this Canon be entered amongst the 
Canons of the Church, and that motion was passed 
by the House of Deputies. The House of Bishops 
finding themselves in this difiiculty, preferred, in 
place of adopting that Canon, to adopt another 
Canon which the House of Deputies had in the mean- 
time passed. 

It will be seen that there is a plain difference. In 
the case of 1871 the House of Bishops received a 
message from the House of Deputies passing the 
amendment to the Constitution and voting to send 
it down to the various Dioceses, laid that 
message on the table, afterwards took 
it up and referred it to the Commit- 
tee on the Constitution, and from that Committee 
it was never reported. I think the House can plain- 
ly see that the precedent is entitled to no weight. 
That is all I wish to say. 

Mr. BALDWIN, of Michigan. I move to lay the 
amendment of the Deputy from Pittsburgh on the 
table. 

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 
Mr. PARKER, of Virginia. We are here, Mr. 
President, not so much for mere discussion as to act 
practically for the good of this Church. I think if 
the gentlemen who address the House, and who are 
anxious to express their views, would only re- 
I member that there is some little common-sense left 
j in the body of those who constitute this House, we 
1 might save ourselves from a great deal of discussion, 
1 and approach to — get to action upon the various 
j questions of great importance in which many of the 
i number feel great interest. I therefore give notice 
i that, when I shall be in order, I will offer the fol- 
' lowing resolution : 



Resolved, That during the remainder of this 
session, no Deputy shall speak on any subject more 
than once, nor more than fifteen minutes at any one 
time, except by leave of the House expressly 
given." 

I think, sir, that will facilitate our business. "We 
are now approacliing the close of the third week of 
the session, which is the ordinary limit of our 
meeting. 

The PRESIDENT. There is another matter now 
before the House. The resolution may be allowed 
to go on the Calendar, 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The Reverend 
Deputy from Texas has to-day brought before us a 
matter of vast magnitude. It is now many years since 
the hearts of this Convention were first turned by the 
trumpet tones of his voice calling to our notice the 
needs of a vast region that the Church would relax 
her hold, which is there almost upon the throat of 
the Church, and enable here to go forward in her 
appointed work, conquering and to conquer 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will please 
recollect that the question has changed its aspect 
since the Deputy from Texas made his speech. 
The report of the Committee on Constitutional 
Amendments is now the simple matter before the 
House. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. And the ob- 
ject of the motion, Mr. President, is what ? 

The PRESIDENT. To discharge the Committee 
from the consideration of the subject. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I yield at once 
with the hope that I may get the floor presently. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I beg 
leave to make a motion to facilitate business. I 
move in connection with that special report of the 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, 
the report which purposes to give relief to 
Texas on the principles therein indicated, 
that the message of the House of Bishops No. 
34 be taken up and referred to the Committee 
on Constitutional Amendments, with instructions to 
make it conform to that report. I will state in a 
moment the reasons for my motion, and I think 
they will commend it to the favor of the House. 

The message of the House of Bishops presents a 
very grave constitutional question, upon wliich I 
may say that there was a radical division in the 
Committee on Constitutional Amendments. I know 
perfectly well that that message of the House of 
Bishops cannot be concurred in by this House with- 
out a determined opposition and a long debate, 
because it proposes precisely the permanent dis- 
membering of the Diocese of Texas, which many of 
the lawyers and laymen of this House think cannot be 
done without an amendment to the Constitution. I 
do not share that doubt in my own mind. I do not 
believe the message of the House of Bishops proposes 
any violation of the Constitution. I do not stop to 
give my reasons, but I know very well that there are 
many members of this House abler and more learn- 
ed than I am who not only doubt, but have a deep 
conviction the other way. I therefore say that re- 
lief in that way will not be given to the Diocese of 
Texas without a long debate and a determined op- 
position, and perhaps not at all. 

But the special report of the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution— a report, I may 
say, that was unanimously made by them — ^proposes 
to give relief to the Diocese of Texas by setting 
apart a large portion of its territory, according to 
the wishes of that Diocese, as missionary ground, 
to be covered by the appointment of a Missionary 
Bishop or Bishops, without determining that the 
Diocese of Texas is thereby pennanently dismem- 
bered. I think the House will agree, 
I think the Delegation of Texas will 
agree, perhaps without a division, to 



five relief in that way, and then I wish to add that 
suppose the Committee on Amendments to the Con- 
stitution collaterally with this subject will bring f or- 
1 ward an amendment to the Constitution to cover 
I doubts and to provide for future cases as they may 
i arise. Therefore, I move that the Message of the 
i House of Bishops be taken up in connection with 
that special report of the Committee on Constitu- 
tional Amendments, and be referred to that Com- 
mittee with instructions to make it conform to the 
conclusions of that report. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President, 
I am only too glad to hear what has just been pro- 
posed by the honorable Deputy from Central New 
York. I shall not detain the House with any words 
of mine now. I share his doubt as to the conrect- 
ness of the decision at which that distinguished Com- 
mittee has arrived. I think that it is com- 
petent to this Convention now and here, 
acting upon the consent of the Bishop of Texas 
and of his Diocese, to do what this Con- 
vention is empowered to do in the case of a 
Diocese seeking to be divided ; that is to say, to 
grant the permission asked by the Bishop of the 
Diocese ; but I agree with the honorable Deputy 
that there is danger of a long debate concerning a 
matter on which we are substantially agreed, and, 
therefore, in the full trust that that Committee will 
return a most speedy report that may be easily 
acted upon, I shall not pursue my right nor detain 
the Convention with one word more than second- 
ing it. 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. ["Question! Ques- 
tion !"] If the House is anxious for the question to 
be taken, it is all I want. I desired simply to say, 
in corroboration of what has been said by Judge 
Comstock, that the Committee on Constitutional 
Amendments will, if his resolution be adopted, and 
that subject be referred to us, act upon that question 
with as much promptness as my very worthy 
j friend, the Clerical Deputy from Texas, himself 
will ask, he being a member of that Committee. 
[ ' ' Question ! " " Question I "] 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
of Judge Comstock to take up.the message from the 
House of Bishops, No. 34, and refer it together with 
the report from the Committee on Constitutional 
Amendments to that Committee, in order that the 
action proposed by the House of Bishops may be 
conformed to that report. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. Let me ask Judge Comstock 
whether he included in his motion the report that 
was under discussion ? 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. That 
report embraces the opinion of the Committee that 
the proposed amendment to the Constitution has 
fallen to the ground for the reasons therein stated. 
I move that the House agree to that report. 

The PRESIDENT. That motion has virtually 
been passed by laying the amendment on the table, 
I think. The Chair will put the question on agree- 
i ing to the report. 

Mr. BURUWIN, of Pittsburgh. The original 
motion I made to discharge the Committee disposes 
of the report. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will put the ques- 
tion on discharging the Committee. 

The Committee was discharged. 

{ MISSIONARY BISHOPS. 

The following message (No. 37) was received from 
I the House of Bishops : 

[ "The House of Bishops informs the House of 
1 Deputies that it has adopted the following resolu- 
j tions : 

' ' Resolved, That this House hereby constitutes 
I Japan a separate Missionary District. 



165 



"Resolved, That this House hereby appoints to 
the supel•^'isioll of said district Rt. Rev. Channing 
M. Williams, d.d., the present Missionary Bishop 
of China and Japan, with the title of Missionary 
Bishop of Yeddo, havuig jurisdiction in Japan. 

" Resolved, That this House hereby constitutes 
China a separate Missionary District, and will pro- 
ceed to nominate a Missionary Bishop therefor, to 
be designated as Missionary Bishop of Shanghai, 
having Episcopal jurisdiction in China; and the 
House of Bishops informs the House of Deputies that 
it has, in accordance with the above resolutions, 
nominated the Rev. "William Pendleton Orrick, of 
the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, Rector of 
Chi'ist Cathedral, Reading, in said Diocese, as Mis- 
sionarv Bishop of Shanghai, with jurisdiction in 
China.^" 

THE HYMNAL. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I tried twice 
to-day, and by accident have missed fire. I want 
to get the Hjnnnal off my mind and shoulders. 
I move that it be made the special order for two 
o'clock on Tuesday. 

The motion was" agreed to. 

SHORTENED SERVICES. 

Rev. Dr. DUDLEY, of Maryland. I desire to 
offer a resolution now, because hy our rules of order 
after the sixteenth day no new business can be in- 
troduced. It has been agreed upon in the Commit- 
tee on Amendments to the Constitution that we can- 
not, without an amendment to the Constitution, 
provide for any order of shortened services. It 
will be remembered that it seemed to be the almost 
unanimous desire of the Convention three years ago 
that there should be, if possible, some shortened 
form of services. Therefore, I propose this resolu- 
tion : 

" Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution to report upon the 
expediency of proposing an amendment to Article 8 
of the Constitution, which shaU authorize the altera- 
tion by Canon of the nibrical order of the daily 
morning and evening prayer. " 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. I suggest to the 
mover of the resolution to add to it " and if deemed 
expedient to report the amendment." 

Rev. Mr. DUDLEY, of Maryland. Certainly, I 
accept that. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I think that 
matter has already been before the Committee on 
Canons, and is embodied in a report of theirs. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that this resolu- 
tion be referred to the Committee on Amendments 
to the Constitution. 

The motion was agreed to. 

COURT OF APPEALS. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York, offered 
the following resolution, which was on his motion 
referred to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That an Amendment of the Sixth Article of the 
Constitution be proposed, so that said ai'ticle shall 
read as follows : 

" The mode of trying Bishops shall be provided by 
the General Convention. The Court appointed for 
that purpose shaU be composed of Bishops only. 
In the several Dioceses the mode of trying in the 
first instance Presbyters and Deacons may be in- 
stituted by the Convention thereof ; but the Gene- 
ral Convention may provide for the institution of a 
court or courts of appeal or for the review of trials. 
Until the General Convention shall make such pro- 
vision, a court of appeal or review maybe instituted 
and maintained by any Diocese or by any number 
of Dioceses confedei'ated for that purpose." 



TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I present the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

''Whereas, by Canon 13 of Section 2 (page 57 of 
the Digest), the assent of the House of Clerical and 
Lay Deputies in General Convention is made neces- 
sary before the testimonials of a Bishop-elect can 
reach the House of Bishops, and a constitutional 
majority of the members must sign said testimon- 
ials; and 

" Whereas, By the second article of the Constitu- 
I tion ' the concurrence of both orders shall be neces- 
sary to constitute a vote of the Convention ' ; and 
whereas. The Canons of this Church do not direct 
that the Standing Committees of each Diocese shall 
be composed of clergymen and laymen. Therefore, 
"Resolved, That Canon 2 'Of Standing Commit- 
tees,' Title III. (page 122), be amended by inserting 
after the word ' committee ' in the second line these 
: words : 'composed of an equal number of clergy- 
j men and laymen ' ; and that Canon 15 'Of Bishops,' 
Title I. (page 50), be amended by inserting the fol- 
lowing words after the word ' each ' in the third 
line, ' by a vote of a majority of the clerical and of 
the lay members. ' " 
This is merely to make the Canon correspond with 
i the Constitution of the Church and the practice. 
I I move that it be referred to the Committee on 
! Canons. 

I The motion was agreed to. 

I HOUSE OF DEPUTIES. 

! Mr. CASS, of Pittsburgh. I have a short business 
resolution t at I desire to have referred to the Com- 
i mittee on Canons : 

I "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
j That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the 
I House of Deputies, in making up the proceedings of 
I this session of the General Convention for pubhca- 
i tion in the Journal for 1874, to strike out the words 
i ' House of Clerical and Lay Deputies ' wherever 
they occur, and insert instead thereof the words 
'House of Deputies.' " 

By the Constitution of this Church this House is 
denominated the House of Deputies ; most frequent- 
ly it is called the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties, descriptive of the House and not the name. 
It is with a view to correct this that I offer this re- 
solution, and I move it be referred to the Committee 
on Canons. 
The motion was agreed to. 

HOURS OF SITTING. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
give notice that at the request of other gentlemen, 
I will move, to-morrow, to change the rule of this 
House so as to provide that hereafter we meet at 
nine o'clock instead of ten in the morning, and dis- 
pense with evening sessions next week. 

The PRESIDENT. The notice will be entered. 

PRINTING OF THE CALENDAR. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I now ask for 
I action on the motion I made some time ago to print 
the Calendar. 
The motion was agreed to. 

TRIALS OF CLERGYMEN. 

Rev. Mr, MARPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
offer a resolution of reference : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Amendments 
to the Constitution be requested to enquire 
whether there is anything that conflicts with 
the independence of the different Dioceses 
or with the spirit of the Constitution of this Church 
in a proposition that, in the case of the trial of a 
minister for holding and teaching publicly or pri- 
vately any doctrine contrary to that held by this 



166 



Church, the consent and approval of two-thirds 
of the number of persons constituting the court of 
trial shall be necessary to a conviction." 

I wish merely to say in explanation tbat novv^ 
there seems to be held before the Clergy of this 
Church too much of a threat. Three years ago it 
was remarked that a provision of this kind seemed 
to conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution 
merely requires tha,t the General Convention shall 
ordain the mode of trial. Now, I ask oily that the 
same General Convention that ordains rules in re- 
gard to admission into the ministry shall ordain 
rules as to the exclusion from the ministry. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution. 

ABSENCE OF CLERGYMEN. 

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan, submitted 
the following resolution, which was referred to the 
Committee on Canons : 

" Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee 
on Canons to enquire and report whether it be ad- 
visable to add to Section 7, Title li., after the words 
' Bishop thereof ' in line three, ' or when for a period 
of two years, although resident in the Diocese, he shall 
not have been engaged in ministerial work as de- 
fined in the Canons of the Diocese, ' and after the 
words ' residence in his Diocese ' in line twelve, ' or 
shall become engaged in ministerial work. ' " 

THE CALENDAR. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I move that we pro- 
ceed to the consideration of the business of the 
Calendar in the hope that we may clear the docket. 

The PRESIDENT. No motion is required. The 
Calendar, is regularly before the House. 

DISCIPLINE OF COMMUNICANTS. 

The SECRETARY. The first business on the 
Calendar is the following resolution submitted by 
Rev. Mr. Shipman, of Kentucky, on the sixth day 
of the session : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That a joint committee, to consist on the part of this 
House of three clergymen and three laymen, be ap- 
pointed to consider and report to the General Com- 
vention what action, if any, is desirable in addition 
to, or in explanation of, the provisions already en- 
acted by tliis Church, for the godly discipline of its 
communicant members." 

The resolution was agreed to. 

RITUALISM. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Cal- 
endar is the memorial from the Diocese of Arkansas, 
presented by Rev. Mr. Trimble, of Arkansas, to 
which is appended the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the foregoing memorial be, and 
is hereby, adopted by this House, and referred to the 
House of Bishops. " 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
move that it be indefinitely postponed. It relates to 
Ritual, and we have a Canon repoited on the 
subject. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move that it be 
laid on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion to lay on the 
table takes precedence. The question is on laying 
this matter on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

DEPUTIES FROM ALBANY. 

The PRESIDENT. The next busmess on the Cal- 
ander is the report of the Committee on Elections 
ouching the application of Rev. Dr. Hopkins for 
he temporary occupancy of the place of Rev. Dr. 



Payne, absent on leave. No action was recom- 
mended by the Committee, but, at the request of 
several members, it v/as placed on the Calendar. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move that it be 
taken from the Calendar and laid on the table. 
I The motion was agreed to. 

j RELATIONS WITH CANADIAN CHURCH. 

i The PRESIDENT. The next business is the re- 
port of the Joint Committee to meet the Delegation 
from the Provincial Synod of Canada in regard to 
such measures as that Delegation desired to bring 
before this General Convention, made by Rev. Dr. 
Rudder, of Pennsylvania, on the seventh day of the 
session. 

Mr. SMITH, of South CaroUna. I move that it 
be passed over for the present. 
The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business is the com- 
munication from the Provincial Synod of Canada, 
read on the seventh day of the session by the Presi- 
dent of the House and provided for by message 
from the House of Bishops, No. 20, appointing a 
joint committee to visit the Provincial Synod at its 
next sy nodical meeting. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I thought that had 
been disposed of. If not I move that it be taken 
from the Calendar and laid on the table. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. What is the 
operation of this motion They sent a delegation 
to us, and they ask in return, do they not, that we 
should do a like favor ? Does this dispose of it ^ 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. It is a matter that 
has no concern on our Calendar. If laid on the 
table it can be called up at any time, if it is neces- 
sary to call it up. It does nob conflict with any 
motion to appoint messengers, or agents, or repre- 
sentatives to attend this Conference. 

The SECRETARY. I would state to members 
that the House of Bishops appointed a Committee 
on its part. This House concurred in that action 
and referred the nominations to the Committee on 
the State of the Church. That Committee this 
morning sent in the nominations, and their report 
was placed on the Calendar. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Then it wiU 
come up. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that this matter 
be taken fi"om the Calendar and laid on the table. 
The motion was agreed to. 

PERSONS ADMITTED TO SECRET SITTINGS. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business is the reso- 
lution offered by Rev. Dr. Locke, of Illinois, inviting 
the presence of the visiting clergy of Ilhnois and 
Wisconsin during the discussion of the report of the 
I Committee on the Consecration of New Bishops, 
touching the confirmation of the election of Drs. 
Welles and Seymour. 

Rev. Dr. CHASE, of Illinois. On behalf of the 
Diocese, I ask that that be withdrawn. 

The PRESIDENT. By general consent leave will 
be granted to withdraw the resolution. 

NUMBERING OF CANONS. 

The next business was the following resolution by 
the Committee on Canons, on the ninth day of the 
session : 

"Resolved, That this House concm's with the 
House of Bishops in the adoption of the resolution 
communicated to this House, in Message No. 8, re- 
lating to Canons 8 and 9 of Title I. of the Digest 
of 1868." 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Can the Secretary refer us to the page of the pro- 
ceedings of 1871 ? 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. These 



167 



two Canons w6re simply dropped out in printing 
the Digest. 

The SECRETARY. They were struck out by the 
adoption of other Canons of the same numbers, and 
the Committee appointed to certify changes did 
not give any insti'uctions about renumbering these 
Canons, and consequently in preparing the Digest 
they could not be put in. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move the adoption of the 
resolution reported. 

The resolution was adopted. 

MINISTERS FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 

The next business was the following resolution re- 
ported "from the Committee on Canons" : 

"2. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the numbers 5 and 7, in Subsection -i, of Section 

8, of Canon 13, of Title I., be changed to 6 and 8 re- 
spectively, so that the said Subsection may read as 
follows : 

" 4. Any Bishop or Bishops elected and consecrated 
under this section, or any Foreign Missionary 
Bishop heretofore consecrated, or any Bishop to 
whom the exercise of episcopal powers and func- 
tions in a foreign Church or congregation shaU 
have been assigned by the presiding Bishop, may 
ordain as deacons or presbj^ters, to officiate within 
the limits of their respective missions, or in such 
foreign Church or congregation, any persons, of the 
age required by the Canons of this Church, who 
shall exhibit to him or them the testimonials re- 
quired b}^ Canons 6 and 8 of this Title, signed by 
not less than two of the ordained Missionaries of 
this Church who may be subject to his or their 
charge, or by two Presbyters of this Church, in good 
standing, connected with such foreign Church or 
congregation. 

"Provided, nevertheless, that if there be only 
one ordained missionary attached to the mission, or 
only one Presbyter of this Church comiected with 
such foreign Church or congregation, and capable 
of acting at the time, the signature of a Presbyter in 
good standing under the jurisdiction of any Bishop 
in communion with this Church may be admitted to 
supply the deficiency. " 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move the adop- 
tion of the resolution. It is a mere misrecital of 
the canons applicable to the subject matter. 
Where it says Canons 5 and 7 of this Title, it ought 
to have been 6 and 8 of this Title. 

The resolution was adopted. 

LAY READERS. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business in order is 
the report of the Committee on Canons in relation 
to the appointment of Lay Readers, as follows : 

" In relation to the enquiry whether a subsection 
relating to the appointment of Lay Readers by the 
Bishop should not be added to Section 2 of Canon 

9, of Title I., the Committee report as follows : 
I' rom an exanoination of the printed Journals it 
would seem that such addition Vv^ould be proper, the 
same having been adopted in this House and not 
appearing to have been stricken out by the House of 
Bishops. But upon examination of the enrolled 
copy of the Canon, as sent to the House of Bishops 
and preserved among its papers, it appears that the 
subsection in question was, through an error of rhe 
Clerk of this House, appended to the preceding 
section (that is, Section 2 of the Canon as it then 
stood), the whole of which section was struck out 
by the House of Bishops, which, of course, included 
said subsection. The Committee therefore recom- 
mend the adoption of the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the subject. " 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move the adop- 
tion of the resolution. 



The resolution was adopted. 

AMENDMENT OF A CANON. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business is the re- 
port of the Committee on Canons in relation to a 
proposed amendment to Section 1, of Canon 10, of 
Title II., as follows: 

"In relation to the proposed amendment to Sec- 
tion 1, of Canon 10, of Title II., by changing the 
word * or,' in the fourth line, to 'and,' the Commit- 
tee report that they are of the opinion that it is in- 
expedient, and recommend the adoption of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
amendment to Section 1, of Canon 10, of Title II." 

The resolution was adopted. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing resolution reported by the Committee on 
Canons : 

i "Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
j discharged from the consideration of a proposed re- 
j peal of Section 6, of Canon 13, of Title L" 
i The resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. I really do not 

think it will conduce to the health of members of 

this House to remain longer in session. I move that 

the House adjourn. 

The motion was not agreed to ; there being on a 

division ayes 66, noes 67. 

COMMITTEE ON RULES. 

The PRESIDENT. The next businesss on the 
Calendar is notice of a motion to amend the rules 
of order, made by Rev. Dr. Hubbard, of New 
Hampshire. > 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. My 
motion was to amend the rules so that the Chair 
might appoint a Committee on Rules of Order. If 
the House wish to go into that now, I will state my 
reasons for it. 

My motion is to amend the fourth rule of order by 
adding to the Standing Committees appointed by the 
Chair a Committee, No. 14, on the Rules of Order. 
My reasons are these : There are many new amend- 
ments constantly arising and new rules proposed to 
the House. It will be a very great convenience to 
have a Committee on the Rules of Order, acquaint- 
ed with parliamentary law, to consider these pro- 
posed rules and to report to the House. 

The next reason is that we are not acting here 
under ordinary parhamenfcary rules. The rules of 
order, theref oi e, are to be accommodated to our es- 
pecial use. A committee of this House would be 
both acquainted with the ordinary parliamentary 
rules, and have great experience in our own sessions 
in order to adapt these rules to our uses. 

The next reason is to preserve the traditions of 
the House. I have noticed in several successive Con- 
ventions the same questions would arise, and hav- 
ing been determined in one Convention, they arise 
in the next Convention, and keep us in discussion 
for half a day because, simply, there was nobody 
in the House whose business it was to preserve the 
traditions of the House, and so to correct at once 
any proposition which conflicts with decisions al- 
ready reached. This Committee wiU be to preserve 
the traditions of the House. 

The fourth reason is that this Committee oq the 
j Rules of Order would form a body of assessors to 
determine questions at once, if possible — questions 
I that are diilicult to determine when thrown into 
! the House. 

! These were my reasons for proposing this Com- 
j mittee. 

I Mr. DE MILL, of Michigan. I move to lay the 
j proposition on the table. 



168 



The motion was agreed to. 

LIMITATION OF DEBATE. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Cal- 
endar is the resolution offered by Mr. Stephens, of 
Tennessee, on the tenth day, proposing a limitation 
of debate on the order of the day, which was at that 
time laid on the table. 

Mr. SHE FEE Y, of Virginia. I move that that 
be withdrawn from the Calendar, the occasion for 
it having passed over. 

The motion was agreed to. 

BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business on the 
Calendar is the report of the Committee on Amend- 
ments to the Constitution, asking to be discharged 
from the further consideration of certain resolu- 
tions proposing a rearrangement of the basis of 
representation in this House. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move that the 
Committee be discharged from the consideration of 
that subject. 

The motion was agreed to. 

REFERENCE OF MESSAGES. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business is the no- 
tice of Mr. Burgwin to amend Rule of Order No. 12, 
as follows : 

"Resolved, That the Rules of Order be amended 
by adding to Rule No. 12 : 

" All messages from the House of Bishops commu- 
nicating any legislative action on their part shall, 
without debate, be referred to the proper Commit- 
tee " 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
would amend by adding "unless otherwise ordered 
by the House. ' 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. That is not ne- 
cessary, because the House always, by a vote of 
two-thirds, can suspend a rule. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
do not want a vote of two-thirds. " Unless other- 
wise ordered " requires only a majority. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I object to the 
amendment, because I think when a resolution 
from the House of Bishops, proposmg legislative 
action, comes here, that it ought to go to a com- 
mittee, unless it is so plain and palpable that we 
ought to pass upon it at once. 

Mr. MOJ^TGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
withdraw the amendment. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

MISSIONARY bishops' FUND. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Cal- 
endar is tiie following resolution, reported by the 
Committee on the State of the Church, on the 
eleventh day of the session : 

" Resolved, That the Trustees of the Missionary 
Bishops' Fund are requested to issue a circular an- 
nually to the Rectors of all our Parishes asking an 
offering for this fund." 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Does that require 
the concurrence of the House of Bishops ? I move 
to insert the words "the House of Bishops concur- 
ring" after "Resolved." It will come with much 
more force if it be the result of the concurrent ac- 
tion of both Houses. 

The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution 
as amended was adopted. 

REMOVAL OP ministers. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business on the 
Calendar is the following resolution, reported by 
the Committee on Canons : 



" Resolved, That this House concurs in the 
amendment of Subsection 4, Section 7, of Canon 12, 
Title I., proposed by the House of Bishops in Message 
No. 18." 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. The Canon as it 
stands provides that it shall be the duty of all 
ministers to obtain and present letters of transfer 
as above, whenever they remove from one Diocese 
or Missionary Jurisdiction to another, with the excep- 
tion of Professors in the General Theological Semi- 
nary, officers of the Board of Missions, and 
professors in colleges and universities which 
are established by the concurrent action of two or 
more Dioceses associated for that purpose. The ob- 
ject is tha^t the professors of the University of the 
South shall not be registered as ministers of the 
Diocese of Tennessee, but shall retain their domicile 
and the right of ministerial domicile in their respec- 
tive Dioceses. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I should like 
to ask why it would not be as well to include in this 
exception professors of theological seminaries which 
shall be under the direction of more than one Dio- 
cesan authority ? It is among the possibilities that 
the Diocese of Wisconsin may be divided, and if 
this Canon be passed without this exception, it 
would oblige the members of one of these Dioceses 
to transfer themselves to the other. There is the 
same reason why this exception should exist in this 
case as in the other. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I think that 
in view of the division of Dioceses, every Diocese 
should agree to this, else we shall be cut off or 
forced to accept ecclesiastical relations that we do 
not desire. I will also say that it adds one step more 
to the supporting of a Church College within a 
State, a Church Seminary, and other institutions of 
the same kind. 

Mr. STARK, of Connecticut. It is five o'clock, 
and I move that the House adjourn. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
move that the motion first made on the report of the 
Committee on Canons be referred to the Committee 
on Canons to report thereon. I think that when 
Dioceses are divided, institutions that belong to 
both Dioceses need this legislation as much as any 
other. 

The PRESIDENT. A motion is made to adjom^n. 
The motion was agreed to ; and the House ad- 
journed until to-morrow, at ten o'clock a.m. 



SIXTEENTH DA\ . 

Saturday, October 24. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
ten A.M. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psalter 
by Rev. Charles Minnigerode, D.D., of Virginia. The 
Lessons were read by Rev. Duncan C. Mann, of Wes- 
tern New York. The Creed and Prayers were said 
by Rev. William P. Ten Broeck, of "W isconsin. The 
Benediction was pronounced by Right Rev. Ozi Wil- 
ham Whitaker, Missionary Bishop of Nevada and 
Arizona. 

The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read 
and approved. 

reference of a message. 
The PRESIDENT. There is a message from the 
House of Bishops undisposed of (Message No. 36), 
which will, under the order of the House, be referred 
to the Committee on Canons. 

LEAVES OF absence. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the 
Committee on Elections, reported that leave of ab- 
sence for the remainder of the session had been 



169 



granted to Rev. Mr. Henry A. Coit, D.D., of New ' 
Hampshh'e, and Mr. J. L. Adkins, of Easton. 

PORTION OF TEXAS SET OFF AS MISSIONARY 
GROUND. 

Rev. Di-. HALL, of Long- Island. I will offer a 
report fi'om the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constit-ation in regard to the Texas matter, and I 
will ask that it be passed at once imanimonsly and 
sent to the House of Bishops if there be no opposi- ' 
tion. It is simplv to avoid the question of dismem- 
bering a Diocese' ; otherwise it is the same as the 
action of the House of Bishops. i 

The Secretary read the report as follows : [ 

" The Committee on Amendments to the Consti- 
tution, to which was referred Message No. 34 of the j 
House of Bishops, with instructions to conform the i 
terms of the same to the former report of this Com- I 
mittee, respectfully offer the following report: | 

" Resolved, That this House does not concur in i 
the said message, and proposes as a substitute the | 
following prea.mbles and resolution: i 

"Whereas, The Diocese of Texas, by constitu- 
tional action of the Bishop and Convention, has, for 
urgent and suflBcient rea,sons, arising from the great 
extent of its unoccupied teiTitory, declared its de- 
sire that all that portion of said Diocese lying north 
of Lampasas, Coryell, MacLennan, i^imestone, 
Freestone, Anderson, Smith, Gregg, and Marion 
Counties, and west of Matagorda, Wharton, Colo- 
rado, Fayette, Bastrop, Travis, Burnett, and Lam- 
pasas Counties, be set apart as a Missionary Dis- 
trict ; and 

' ' Whereas, The General Convention is sufficiently 
assured of the consent of the parishes lying north j 
and west of the aforesaid counties to the occupa- ' 
tion of said territory as Missionary ground; I 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), ] 
That the General Convention hereby signifies its | 
consent and agreement to the setting apart and oc- , 
cupying as Missionary ground that x^ortion of the 
Diocese of Texas hereinbefore described." < 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move that : 
the resolution be put upon its passage at once. i 

There being no objection, the resolution was con- : 
sidered, and agreed to unanimously. | 

COURT OF APPEAL. j 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island, from the Com- 1 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution, sub- ; 
mitted a repoit, which was read as follows : ! 

"The Committee on Amendments to the Constitu- i 
tion, to whom was referred the resolution of the \ 
Convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh in refer- ! 
ence to a Committee of Appeal, report : j 

"A resolution passed by the Diocese of Pittsburgh 
at its annual session on the 10th and 11th of Jime, { 
1874, has been certified to this Convention. It is as 
follows : 

" Ptesolved, That in the sense of this Convention it 
is expedient and desirable that some such change be 
made in the judicial system of the Church as will 
result in the establishment of a Court of Appeal, 
where questions involving doctrine, discipline, and 
worship may be adjudicated by this Church. 

" This resolution is now referred to this Committee i 
to report upon the question whether a change in the | 
Constitution of the Church is necessary in order to i 
the establishment of a Court of Appeals. j 

"The Committee have carefully considered the ! 
question submitted, and report that there can be no ' 
such change in the judicial system of the Church, | 
such as that contemplated by the resolution without 
a change in its organic law. The Committee does 
not pass upon the question whether such a change is 
expedient or desii'able ; under their power and this 
reference it is for them to bring the question simply i 
to the test of the Constitution, i 



" The judicial system of the Church as existing 
under that instrument is simple and well defined, 
both as to its objects, extent, and jurisdiction. By 
the Sixth Article, where i-eference is had to Eccle- 
siastical Courts, trials, and sentences, it is declared 
that in every Diocese the modes of trying Presby- 
ters and Deacons may be instituted "by the Con- 
vention of the Diocese. Here is a jurisdiction and 
mode of trial designated, and this grant of power 
and the mode of exercise exclude its exercise in 
any other way. The la,nguage, ' every Diocese, ' lo- 
cates the jurisdiction. The term used, trying, in- 
dicates in the trial and its incidents a complete 
act. To these reasons may be cited the construc- 
tion which has ever been given by the Church in 
somewhat analogous cases, leaving the Diocese per- 
fectly free and independent to manage their own 
local affairs without any interference from the 
National Church. 

"The Committee in conclusion recommend the 
adoption of the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Committee be discharged 
from further consideration of the subject. " 

CHARLES H. HALL, 

Chairman, 
T. U. DUDLEY, Jr., 
BENJAMIN A. ROGERS, 
J. W. STEVENSON, 
EDWARD McCEADY, 
E. T. WILDER, 
ISAAC HAZLEHURST, 
SAMUEL B. RUGGLES, 
G. W. RACE, 
EDMUND H. BURNT:TT, 
GEORGE F. COMSTOCK, 
V/. F. BULLOCK. 
Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island, I offer this re- 
port to go on the Calendar, 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. As it was on my 
motion that that subject was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution, I move 
that the Committee be discharged from the further 
consideration of it, so far as that report is con- 
cerned. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Why not adopt the reso- 
lution ? The Committee have asked to be dis- 
charged. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I object to that mo- 
tion, and I move that it go on the Calendar with the 
memorial from Pittsburgh. I think it should go 
upon the Calendar. 

'Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I have no objec- 
tion to that if there is any desire to have it go upon 
the Calendar. 

The report was placed upon the Calendar. 

ALTERATION OF PRAYER-BOOK. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island, from the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution, sub- 
mitted a report, which was read, as follows : 

" The Committee on Amendments to the Consti- 
tution, to whom was referred the resolution to en- 
quire and report whether the eighth article of the 
Constitution does not prohibit any alteration of 
the Book of Common Prayer, except in the mode 
therein prescribed, and whether a short or differ- 
ent form of prayer than therein laid down can be 
authorized by a mere Canon of the Church, have 
considered the subject, and respectfully submit the 
following report : 

" The Committee understand, especially in view 
of the Canon now before this House for its consid- 
eration, that this resolution means to enquu^e 
whether, in the judgment of the Committee, it is 
competent for one General Convention, by a mere 
Canon, to prescribe or authorize a form or order of 
Morning or Evening Prayer, to be used at the dis- 
cretion of the minister, as a substitute for the order 



170 



thereof, now laid down in the Book of Common j 
Prayer ; and that this enquiry apphes to the ssr- , 
vice on the Lord's Day, as well as on secular days, | 
since the power to change by Canon the order of 
service of one day necessarily implies the hke 
power for aU. Reasons of expediency or propriety 
may lead us to dispense with the full service more : 
readily on a week-day than on the Lord's Day, but 
the question of constitutional power must be the 
same in both. 1 

' ' The eighth article of the Constitution declares that 
' a Book of Coimnon Prayer, administration of the I 
Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the 
Church, etc. , shall he used in the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church, and that no alteration shall be made in ! 
such Book, unless the same be proposed in our Gen- ' 
eral Convention, and by a resolve thereof made 
known to the Convention of every Diocese, and 
adopted at the subsequent G-eneral Convention.' 
Under that Constitution we have a Book of Com- \ 
mon Prayer with a prescribed order for Prayer, an i 
order for Daily Pra.yer. The .title-page declares it 
to be according to the use of the ' Protestant Epis- 
copal Church ' ; and the Rubrics thereof direct that 
at daily prayer, at every daily prayer, the minister 
shall begin the same in a certain manner, and that ' 
he shall then say, etc., etc., and the order of his . 
saying it, until the end of the Psalter. The ques- ; 
tion then seems to be whether the Rubrics are a part 
of the Prayer-Book, and whether an alteration of : 
the Rubrics is not an alteration of the Book itself, | 
aid within the prohibition of the Constitution. The ; 
substitution of another order of prayer from that 
laid down in the Prayer-Book does not, in terms, , 
alter the language of the Prayer-Book, either in its 
Rubrics or in its prayers. The text of both will 
still remain the same ; and if the phrase in the Con- ! 
stitution against any alteration is to be confined 
merely to alterations of the existing phraseology of 
the Prayer-Book, the question might admit of a \ 
different answer ; bat your Committee are of opin- i 
ion that a Canon which allows the whole or I 
any material part of the prescribed order for the I 
daily prayer to be omitted, and another and differ- i 
ent order be substituted therefor, would be an alter- i 
ation of the Prayer-Book within the spirit and | 
meaning of the Constitution. To omit, to dispense j 
with, to substitute one thing for another, is, of j 
course, more of an alteration than a mere change, i 
variation, or modification of language before used. { 
It is true that the Canon introduced into this Con- | 
stitubion, allowing a shortened form of prayer, has \ 
been substantially enacted, and is now in force ' 
in England ; but it should not be forgotten that in 
England no written Constitution limits or restrains : 
the legislative power, either in ecclesiastical or tem- 
poral affairs, and in both the authority of parlia- 
ment is supreme and omnipotent. Their action, 
therefore, does not seem to be a safe guide or pre- 
cedent for us. Our written Constitution is our or- 
ganic law, our Magna Charta, and must control 
and limit all our legislation. It is weU known, i 
also, that the article now under consideration was ! 
not found in the original Constitution of 1789, but I 
was adopted by the Convention of 1808, of which j 
those great men and legislators. Bishop White and | 
Dr. John Henry Hobart, were leading lights. This ; 
article guards with jealous care the integrity of the ! 
Prayer-Book. It does not, indeed, provide that ! 
any alterations therein must be preceded by an j 
amendment of the Constitution, but the protec- 
tion against its alteration is even more guarded than i 
if such were the case. For if an amendment of the ■ 
Constitution only was necessary to authorise us to ; 
chinge the Prayer-Book by mere Canon, such Canon 
might be passed without three years' consideration 
of its terms. The proposition to amend the Consti- ! 
cution might indeed be before the Chm-ch for three ! 



years, but the desired change of the Prayer-Book 
would not necessarily be. But by the present wise 
pi'O vision of the Constitution no alteration can be 
made m the Prayer-Book, 'unless the desired changes 
in all essential details have been proposed in our Gen- 
eral Convention, made known to each Diocesan Con- 
vention, and adopted at the next General Conven- 
tion, thus securing three full years for their exami- 
nation and approval. And thus is obtained that de- 
liberate sanction which the Constitution intended to 
secure in such an important matter. It is ti-ue that 
we now have a Canon (Title I., Canon 13, Section 14), 
adopted in 1833, allowing any Bishop to compose 
forms of prayer or thanksgiving for use in his own 
Diocese. But it is to be noted that by the very terms 
of his Canon such prayers are only for ' extraordi- 
nary occasions,' and its use is, in fact, hmit«d to 
such occasions. 

"It is true, also, that in 1871 this House did pass a 
Canon authorizing a short order of prayer, but in 
which the House of Bishops did not concur. It does 
not, however, appear that on either of those occa- 
sions the constitutional question now raised was 
considered, and your Committee have not thought 
that these cases furnished so clear a precedent as to 
remove their doubts as to the constitutionaUty of 
the Canon now proposed for the consideration of the 
Convention. 

' ' The Committee desire to be understood as not 
herein expressing any objections to a shortened 
form of prayer to be used on proper occasions, but 
simply that such object can be properly secured only 
in the manner and form prescribed by the Con- 
stitution. The Committee therefore repeat that, in 
their judgment, a short or different form of prayer 
from that laid down in the Prayer-Book cannot be 
authorized by a mere Canon. 

"Resolved, That the Committee be discharged 
fi'om further consideration of this subject. 
(Signed) 

CHARLES H. HALL, G. W. RACE, 
T. U. DUDLEY, Jr., E. T. WILDER, 
BENJAMIN A. ROGERS, GEO. P. COMSTOCK, 
SAMUEL B. RUGGLES, EDWARD McCRADY, 
ISAAC HAZLEHURST, W. F. BULLOCK, 
EDMUND H. BENNETT, J. W. STEVENSON. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would ask the 
passage of that resolution now. 

The PRESIDENT. Is any objection made ? 

Rev. Dr. DE KO VEN, of Wisconsm. I would make 
an amendment to it. 

The PRESIDENT. If it is to be discussed, it had 
better go on the Calendar. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I must move 
an amendment. 

The PRESIDENT. Then the report will go on 
the Calendar. 

STATEMENT OF THE TREASURER. 

The Committee on Expenses, being called on for a 
report, 

Mr. MATTHEWS, Treasurer, was allowed to 
make the following statement : 

" I leave the Convention to-day, and do not ex- 
pect to be back again. I should like to call atten- 
tion to the fact that the Secretary has very kindly 
consented to receive the Diocesan assessments, as I 
am obhged to leave, and to forward them to me at 
Boston. 

" I will also state that I was not here at the time 
the Committee on Expenses made their report, and 
I have since examined very carefuUy the items of 
expense that may be saved. We can save $1000 
in the reports; we can also save, I think, $2000 in 
shortening the Journal. We paid at the last Con- 
vention, and very justly, $500 to the Presiding 
Bishop for back services, and $500 for the precediug 
three years. There was an extra $500. Then I am 



171 



happy to say that the increase in the ministers in 
different Dioceses has been great, and the increased 
receipts will be still larger, and if the Committee 
on Expenses can keep the expenses of printing the 
Journal down, we hope to make the 
second assessment very small, probably not more 
than half what it was before. The printing 
of the Jom-nal is the largest item. Other expenses 
cannot be i-educed, but will probably rather be in- 
creased, as so many new Dioceses coming in natur- 
ally increase the expenses, although to offset that 
the increased number of ministers makes it up and 
perhaps a little more. 

" I will now state, as I leave the Convention, that 
I hope to present my report for the next three years 
to the Convention sitting in Boston, where the Depu- 
ties will all be welcomed by High and Low Church — 
by all the Churchmen of the Old Bay State." 

CELEBRATION OF DIVINE SERVICE, 

Rev. Dr. BEARSDLEY, of Connecticut. The 
Committee on the Prayer-Book, to whom was re- 
ferred the memorial oi sundry lay communicants, 
" humbly praying that no change maybe made in 
the La w of this Church relating to the celebration of 
Divine Service, " respectfully ask to be discharged 
from the consideration of the same. 

I would suggest that the appropriate reference of 
this memorial would have been to the Committee 
on Canons. A similar memorial was referred to 
that Committee yesterday. 

The PRESIDENT. The Committee on the Prayer- 
Book ask to be discharged from the consideration 
of this memorial. 

The Committee was discharged. 

RELIGIOUS REFORM ABROAD. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I have a 
report from a special committee appointed at the 
last Convention : 

" The Joint Committee on the Religious Reform 
in Italy respectfully report: 

"That they have received from the Italian Church 
Reformation Commission a report, which they 
adopt and herewith present to the General Con- 
vention. 

" This Commission was constituted as follows: 
"The Rt. Rev. A. C. Coxe, D.D., ll.d., Bishop of 
Western New York, Honorary President. 

"TheRt. Rev. M. A. DeW. Howe, d.d.. Bishop 
of Central Pennsylvania, Honorary Vice-Presi- 
dent. 

"The Rev, Noah Hunt Schenck, d.d., Chairman. 
Rev, B, I. Haight, d.d., ll.d.; Rev. Samuel Osgood, 
D.D., LL.D.; Rev. George Leeds, d.d.; Rev. Wm, R. 
Huntington, d.d. ; Rev, Eugene A. Hoffman, d,d, ; 
Rev. Edwin Harwood, d.d. ; Rev. Wm. Chauncy 
Langdon, D.D. ; John Cotton Smith, d.d.; 
Rev. Charles R. Hale ; Rev. Albert Z. Gray ; Rev. J. 
Andrews Harris; Leighton Coleman; Rev, Edward 
A. Foggs, D.D. ; J. H. Rogers ; Frederick S. Winston; 
Prof. Fr. Phil. Nash; Henry Chauncey ; E. R. Mudge; 
Wm. M. Goodrich; Henry Meigs ; James S. Mackie; 
Charles L. Cammann; Andrew H, De Witt; Wm. 
G. Low; Ernesto G. Fabbri; Nathan Matthews ; S. K. 
Ashton, M.D. ; John Stewart. 

Rev. Wm. CHAUNCY LANGDON, d.d., For. Sec'y. 
Rev. CHARLES R, HALE, \ rj o * • 
Rev. ALBERT Z. GRAY, l^om^ Secretaries. 
JAMES S. MACKIE, Treasurer. 

" Your Committee express in the warmest terms 
their sense of the great obligation to that Commis- 
sion, under which our Church has been placed, by 
their constant correspondence with and watchful 
interest in the movements of those who are 
encouraging reform in. the Church in Italy, 
and by their efficient and generous exertions 
in maintaining in his important position the 



Rev. William Chaimcy Langdon, d.d., their For- 
eign Secretary. 

" Your Committee also gratefully recognize the 
services of the Rev. Charles R. Hale, one of the Secre- 
taries of the Commission, to v/hose pen they are in- 
debted for the interesting r^stime now presented of 
events during the past three years that have indi- 
cated progress in reform among the churches on the 
Continent and exhibited the character of the move 
ment. 

" Your Committee invite attention to those por- 
tions of the report which relate to cognate movements 
in Germany and Switzerland, and in Mexico. 

"Your Committee further recommend, in accord- 
ance with the views of the Commission, the passage 
of the following resolutions: 

" 1. That inasmuch as movements for religious re- 
form have extended beyond the bounds of the 
Church in Italy, and are being vigorously pressed in 
Germany, Switzerland, Mexico, and other parts of 
Christendom, the House of Bishops concurring, a 
Joint Committee on Ecclesiastical Relations and Re- 
ligious Reform be constituted, in place of the Joint 
Committee on Religious Reform in Italy, whose 
office it shall be to give moral co-operation to move- 
ments in progress throughout Christendom, which 
are preparing the way for a return to Apostolic 
truth and primitive order. 

"2. That such Joint Committee consist of five 
Bishops, five Presbyters, and five lay members of 
the General Convention. 

"3. That the General Convention heartily re- 
sponds to the sentiments of the Commission, when 
closing their connection with their Foreign Secre- 
tary, Rev. Wm. Chauncy Langdon, d.d., sensible 
of his efficiency in promoting the work com-mitted 
to him in behalf of our Church, and acknowledging 
thankfully his untiring zeal, his faithfulness, and 
marked success. 

"4, Resolved, That this report herewith submit- 
ted be printed in the Journal." 

I would say just one word in explanation. I 
have here the Commission's report, which is quite 
voluminous, and which I beg to present. I do not 
suppose it is desirable to have it read now, though I 
should be very glad to have the members of the 
House read it. It is a r6sum4 of the present move- 
ment, the inner mission in the Roman Catholic 
Church not only in Italy, but the Old Catho- 
lic movement in Germany and Switzerland, 
as well as a reference to the movements 
of a similar character in different parts 
of the world, and also refers to the wonderful move- 
ment in Mexico, substantially of the same charac- 
ter. I should like to have this report brought to 
the attention of the House in some way or other, 
by having it read or by having it printed. I feel 
myself very great hesitancy in asking the attention 
of the House to such a long report. Perhaps it had 
better be printed in the Journal, so that it shall 
come before the Church, for it is one of the 
most important documents, I think, that v^e shall 
have before us at this time, and it ought to 
go on the records of the Church as closing up partic- 
ularly what is called the Religious Reform Commis- 
sion, which now ends. It is proposed under this 
new Commission to have no foreign paid secretary 
at all. Rev. Dr. Langdon's connection with this 
movement ceases except as he might as a foreign 
chaplain be in correspondence, as we expect that all 
foreign chaplains will be, with this Committee when 
it shall be organized. The movement is de- 
signed to embrace the work throughout the world, 
and the Joint Committee is to act rather as a bu- 
reau of correspondence for the purpose of not only 
having this Church advised of movements in 
which it would naturally be in sympathy, but, fur- 
thermore, to have an authorized chaimel through 



172 



which moral co-operation raay be extended by this 
Church to movements, such as are herein described, 
in other religious bodies. I beg to submit the 
resolutions. 

The PRESIDENT. Do you wish to put the re- 
solutions on their passage now ? 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I should 
like to have them passed and sent up to the other 
House. 

The resolutions were read and passed. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Now, I 
move that the report submitted by the Committee be 
printed in the Journal. 

The motion was agreed to. 

THEOLOGICAL. EDUCATION. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carohna, from the 
Committee on Canons, submitted the following re- 
port: 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom were re- 
ferred two resolutions relating to examinations for 
Deacon's Orders, respectfully report that they have 
considered the same, and are of the opinion that it 
is inexpedient at this time to make the proposed 
amendments in the Canons upon Theological Educa- 
tion, which were so carefully perfected and adopt- 
ed at the last Convention. They therefore recom- 
mend the adoption of the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the subject of 
increasing the requirements for admissions to the 
Diaconate. " 

The resolution was considered and agreed to. 

CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. As this 
is the last day for introducing new business, I should 
like to offer this resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the certificate to be given by the Standing 
Committee by Title I., Canon 2, Section 3, Sub- 
section 6, be amended by inserting in the third hne, 
after the word 'we,' the words ' have reason to ;' 
and that the words ' do furthermore declare that in 
our opinion,' in the seventh Mne, be omitted, and 
the words ' and that ' be substituted, and the word 
' them ' substituted for ' us ' in the third line, so 
that the whole certificate may read : 

"'We, whose names are underwritten, certify 
that (from our personal knowledge, or from testi- 
monials laid before them, as the case may be) we 
believe that A. B. is pious, sober, and honest ; that 
he is attached to the doctrine, discipline, a,nd wor- 
ship of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; that he 
is a Communicant in said Church in good standing ; 
and that he possesses such qualifications as fit him 
for entering upon a course of preparation for the 
holy ministry.' " 

This is intended to meet difiiculties that sometimes 
arise where persons present themselves as candidates 
who are themselves unknown, and come, perhaps, 
from obscm-e portions of the Diocese. It will relieve 
the consciences of some of the Standmg Committees. 
I move that this resolution be referred to the Com- 
mittee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

EUCHARISTIC ADORATION AND PENANCE. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. I offer the 
following resolutions to go on the docket : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the practices commonly described under the 
name of ? lucharistic Adoration, and the practices 
designated as the Sacrament of Penance, together 
with all teachings leading to the above-named prac- 
tices, are hereby solemnly declared to be foreign to 
this Church. 

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Prayer- 



Book be requested to prepare and report to this 
Convention such Rubrics as may be judged by said 
Committee needful to the preservation of the Ritual 
of this Church with integrity and purity. 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be in- 
structed to ascertain v/hether any legislation be 
necessary to prohibit in public worship (com.rnonly 
called Divine Service), in the Communion and Bap- 
tismal Ofiice, in the Order of Confirmation, in the 
Solemnization of Matrimony, and in the Order for 
the Bm^al of the Dead, the use, by any minister or 

I lay-reader of this Church, of any prayer. Litany, 
Suffrages, Thanksgiving, Exhortation, or form of 
Absolution, other than those contained in the Book of 

I Common Prayer." 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. I should like 
to ask whether this cuts off such private services at 
the house, in case of a funeral, as we are accus- 
tomed to have from a clergyman's companion i? 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. It is merely 
desired that the resolutions go on the Calendar. 
They are not now up for discussion. 
The PRESIDENT. The resolutions wiU be placed 

I on the Calendar. 

j MISSIONARY BISHOPS OF CHINA AND JAPAN. 

Rev. Dr. BRECK, of Central Pensylvania. I 
submit the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That Message No. 37 from the House 
of Bishops be made the order of the day for Tues- 
day next at eight o'clock p.m." 

This is in regard to the Missionary Bishops of 
China and Japan. I do this in order "that the con- 
gregation need not be dismissed. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

I RUBRICS FOR INFANT BAPTISM. 

I Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut, from the Com- 
! mittee on Canons, submitted a report, which was 
j read, as follows : 

! " The Committee on Canons have had under care- 
1 ful consideration the memorials coming from more 
I than five hundred of the clergy of this Church and a 
! very large number of vestries and other laymen, to- 
! gether with the nearly unanimous action of one of 
I the largest Dioceses, praying for the relaxation of 
{ the Rubrics in the Office for Infant Baptism, as 
{ granted in a former age in case of the Apostles' 
I Creed, which tended to the peace of the Church 
I without altering its doctrine or perceptibly its prac- 
! tice. 

i "In view of the number and character of the 
I petitioners, it is deemed reasonable at least, if not 
. their due, that their petition should he so far re- 
I sponded to as to put it in the power of the next 
I General Convention to extend the desired relief if 
I in its judgment the best interests of the Church 
should so require. The Committee therefore, with- 
out being understood to pledge any of its m^embei^ 
upon the vote thereon, do submit for the action of 
the House the following resolution: 

"1. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That it be and hereby is proposed to add, as a Rubric 
at the end of the OflBce for Infant Baptism, the v^^ords 
I following, viz. : ' The minister may, at his discre- 
: tion, omit the Exhortation preceding the Lord's 
i Prayer in the above Office, and in place of the 
Thanksgiving substitute the Collect for Easter Even- 
' ing. This Rubric, however, is not to be construed as 
implying any change in the doctrine of the Church.' 
' "2. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the Secretary of the House of Deputies cause 
the proposed Rubric to be made known to the Dio- 
ceses, as required by the Constitution and Canons." 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I move that 
the consideration of these resolutions be made the 
order of the day for Tuesday, immediately after we 
have disposed of the order concerning the Hymnal, 



173 



and be continued the order of the day until it is de- 
cided upon. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. A special 
order must be fbr a specific hour, I respectfully sug- 
gest, because it may crovrd other matters specifical- 
ly appointed for certain hours. 

Rev. Dr. LETTIN, of Maryland. As far as T have 
been able to catch a few v/ords. this is a very im- 
portant measure; but there is so much conversation 
going on among gentlemen near the Chair that we 
camiot hear a single syllable, except to know that 
this is an important measure — a change in the 
Prayer-Book. 

Rev. Dr. BERKLEY, of Missouri. I hope the 
Chair will be land enough to order the re-reading of 
the report. 

The report was again read. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The proposi- 
tion I have made is that this report be taken up for 
consideration on Tuesday, immediately after the 
H3Tnnal is disposed of. We cannot fix the time be- 
cause the Hymnal may very soon be disposed of or 
it may take more time than I think it will. We 
want this subject to come distinctly before the 
House immediately after that which is the order on 
Tuesday shall be disposed of. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I wouJd suggest 
that this report be printed. It is a matter that 
touches the Prayer-Book, and therefore the mem- 
bers should be put in possession of it. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I accept that 
suggestion, and include it in my motion. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion is that the report 
be printed, and made the order of the day for Tues- 
day after the disposition of the Hymnal. 

The motion was agreed to. 

PRATER FOR RULERS, 

Mr. CORmVALL, of Kentucky. I desire to offer 
a resolution directing a prayer for the President of 
the United States according to the revised praver 
of 1789 : 

' ' Whereas, in the preface to the Book of Common 
Prayer, it is stated that when in the course of Divine 
Providence these American States became indepen- 
dent with respect to civil government, their eccle- 
siastical independence was necessarily included ; and 
that thereafter the attention of the Chui'ch was 
first drawn to those alterations in the Litxn^gy 
which became necessary in the prayers for our civil 
rulers in consequence of the Revolution. And 
the principal care herein was to make them confor- 
mable to A^'hat ought to be the proper end of all such 
prayers, namely, that rulers may have grace, wis- 
dom, and understanding to execute justice and to 
maintain truth, ' and that the people may ' lead quiet 
and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty ' ; and 

"Whereas, this prayer, acknovv lodged to" be the 
first subject of attention of the Convention of 1789, 
and revised in the words quoted above from the 
preface, has not been published in the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer, but instead thereof there is now the 
Praj-er used before the Revolution, changed only as 
to the title of the RuJers, 'the President of the 
United States ' having been substituted for the King 
and Pi-oyal family ; and, 

"Whereas, none of the petitions of the revised 
prayer, which were justly declared to be the proper 
end of all such prayers, are to be found in the 
prayer in use, viz. : that the rulers may have grace, 
wisdom, and miderstanding to execute justice and 
to maintain tmth ; and that the people may lead 
quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and hon- 
esty, but instead thereof other petitions rejected by 
the revisers, and resting on no sanction or precept 
of Holy Scripture or of the primitive Church, 
Therefore, 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 



I That the Prayer for the President of the United 
j States, and all in civil authority, as set foith in the 
I General Convention of 1789, be" substituted for the 
: prayer now in use, which would read substantially 
j as follows : 

1 " 'O Lord, our Heavenly Father, the High and 
I Mighty Ruler of the Universe, who dost from Thy 
1 throne behold all the dwellers upon earth, most 
I heartily we beseech Thee to give to the President of 
: the United States, and all others in authority, grace, 
i wisdom, and understanding to execute justice and 
\ to maintain truth, that the people may lead quiet 
I and peaceable lives in godliness and honesty, 
i through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.'" 
I I desire to say, in explanation, that I wish this to 
i go on the Calendar that it may come properly be- 
I fore the House, i have endeavored on other occa- 
j sions to bring it to the notice of the House, but 
have never succeeded. It has been referred to 
the Committee on the Prayer-Book, and has 
been reported on the last days of the 
session. I do net wish this now referred to 
the Committee on the Prayer-Book. It is not in 
the light of an alteration ; I desire no alterations 
in the doctrine or in the offices of the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer. My own study leads me to believe 
I them to be scriptural and primitive, ajid I approve 
! of them ex animo. But this is a very important 
! matter, and if it be investigated by this House, I 
j believe they will see that the resolution is 
I proper and wise. It is not an alteration 
j of the Book of Common Prayer properly 
i so called, but is a correction. If any one will take 
i the preface and look at what is there stated to- have 
I been the revised prayer, he will see that the coi'rec- 
I tion ought to be made. This is especially a time, 
when there is so m.uch violence all over the land, 
I when this praj-er should be set forth that the people 
i may lead quiet and peaceable lives in aU godliness 
i and honesty. When it comes up for discussion, as I 
! hope it will, I will present the reasons for it. 

The PRESIDENT, The resolution wiU be placed 
on the Calendar. 

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS, 

Rev, Dr. STRINGFELLOW, of Alabama. Mem- 
j bers of the Convention will remember that durijig 
our secret session I read certain ansv. ers to certain 
j enquiries proposed. I laid those papers on the Sec- 
! retary's desk, not to confide them to his custody, 
! but for the puipose of enabling members of the Con- 
! vention to examine them. The difficulty is, that 
i the Secretary understands that they have become 
I papers of the House. I ask permission of the House 
I to withdraw the papers, as Lfeel that they properly 
I do not belong to the House, but more properly be- 
I long to gentlemen whose nam-cs are concerned. My 
I object in laying them on the table was not to put 
them in the custody of the House, but simply to 
enable members to consult them. 
I Mr. WELSH, of Pennsj-lvania. I m.ove that the 
' time be extended fifteen minutes for the order of the 
; day, so as to allow resolutions which have been ac- 
cumulating during the d&.js of the secret session to 
; come in. This is the last day when thej^ can be 
i brought in without a two-thirds A^ote. 
! The PRESIDENT. The chair will put the ques- 
' tion on the motion of the gentleman from Pennsyl- 
, vania to postpone the consideration of the Calendar 
' for fifteen minutes in order to admit resolutions. 
The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. STRINGFELLOW, of Alabama. I now 
ask leave of the House to withdraw the papers to 
which I have alluded. 
! The PRESIDENT. Will the House grant leave ? 

Rev, Mr, HANCKEL, of Virginia. Before that 
i question is put, I beg to recall to the memory of 
' the House the fact that when the first paper in 



174 



manuscript was presented, I especially put the 
question: "Is that paper put in possession of the 
House, and will it be in testimony ?" I was told 
yes. I submit that all papers, whether in manu- 
script or in print, which were put before this House 
in testimony, became ex necessitate a matter of 
record, to which this House has a right, and to 
which they may i efer in justification of their acts. 
Withdraw those papers, and we have nothing on 
which to fall back. 

Rev. Dr. STEINGFELLOW, of Alabama. In 
answer to the gentleman from Virginia, I would 
say that as far as I myself am concerned, if all the 
papers that were adduced here and every letter 
that was read here, were in the hands of the Secre- 
tary- 
Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I rise to a ques- 
tion of order. The rule was suspended for the pur- 
pose of introducing resolutions for reference. 

The PRESIDENT. The consideration of this 
matter being objected to, it cannot be argued now, 
but the proposition must go on the Calendar. 

PLACE OF NEXT SESSION. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I offer the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"Resolved, That a Committee, composed of three 
clergymen and three laymen, be appointed to con- 
fer with the House of Bishops, and suggest to this 
House an appropriate place or places for holding 
the next session of the General Convention." 

It is impossible for us to act on this question with- 
out a conference. Sevei;al places have been men- 
tioned ; but the accommodation of so large a body 
of representatives, and the character of the Church, 
must all be considered. Hence the importance of 
having a Committee. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be placed 
on the Calendar. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I rise to a point of 
order. I submit that the clerical gentleman from 
Alabama offered a resolution. 

Rev. Dr. CAD Y, of New York. That goes on the 
Calendar. 

Mr. PARKER, of Virginia. I ask the Secretary 
to report the resolution which I offered yesterday, 
and I hope it will be adopted. 

The PRESIDENT. There must first be leave to 
take it up out of its place on the Calendar. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. That is out of 
order. Was not the fifteen minutes given in order 
to introduce new business not already before us ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. 

PRESIDING BISHOP. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I offer the 
following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That in view of the advanced age of increasing 
infirmities of the present Presiding Bishop and the 
pressure of duties devolving upon him, a joint com- 
mittee of three Bishops, three Presbyters, and three 
laymen be appointed to consider and report to this 
body some plan by which adequate rehef can be 
accorded him under the circumstances." 

I think this may be permitted to pass without dis- 
cussion. 

The PRESIDENT. There is so little time that 
everything had better go on the Calendar. 
Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Very well. 

AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

Mr. BLANCHARD, of Maryland, submitted the 
following resolution, which was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). That 
Article 3 of the Constitution be amended by striking 
out all after the word ' Houses ' in the tenth line of 
that article." 



RITUAL OBSERVANCE, 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I wish to offer a 
resolution, and I may be allowed to say that it will 
touch a Canon which will come before this House, I 
think, as the order of the day on Monday, a Canon 
in which I most heartily concur, which I hope will 
pass, and doubt not that it v/ill. While about per- 
sons and policies we may differ, I trust on principles 
we shall all be agreed. The motion which I have to 
make is supplementary to the action which is to be 
consummated by this House cn Monday, in case of the 
acceptance of that Canon, and I will read it to give 
light to the House before I say anything further: 

"Whereas, The maintenance of sound doctrine, 
the promotion of a reverent and lively worship, 
and the preservation of peace and order, demand 
the exercise by this Church of that prerogative it 
possesses in every branch thereof, 'to ordain, 
change, and abolish ceremonies or rites, ordained 
only by man's authority, so that all things be done 
to edifying ' ; and whereas, through defect of legisla- 
tion in matters of ritual, or uncertainty and dispute 
as to provisions for the same allowed in the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church to have the force of law, 
grave apology is lent both to excess and to looseness, 
and a serious bar is erected to even rightful im- 
provement. Therefore 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That a joint commission be appointed to examine, 
ascertain, and report to the next General Conven- 
tion what provisions are of force, whether by Ru- 
bric or Canon, or by lawful custom, for the regula- 
tion of public worship in this Branch of His Church ; 
and wheresoever deficiency or uncertain fcy shall ap- 
pear in relation to the furnishings and ornaments 
of the sanctuary, the vestments of the clergy, and 
ceremonial observances, to recommend for adoption 
such measures to meet it as will constitute a defi- 
nite, though elastic and generous, rule for future 
guidance and government." 

Allow me to say, Mr. President, in one moment — 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. It will cut off all 
other resolutions. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I will say noth- 
ing, then. I move to refer the resolution to the 
Committee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. DOUGLASS, of Missouri. I move that the 
resolution offered by the Rev. Deputy from Mary- 
land (Dr. Leeds), which is pertinent to the report of 
the Committee on Canons No. 16, be printed for the 
information of the House. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Let me ask 
whether we are not making a precedent, and a dan- 
gerous precedent, to print anything that an indi- 
vidual may offer before it goes to a committee ? 

The motion to print was rejected. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I think the 
Chair stated that my resolution was to go on the 
Calendar. My motion wiU be to refer it to the Com- 
mittee on Canons. 

ORDER OP BUSINESS. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
gave notice yesterday of a motion to regulate our 
times of meeting. If there is any objection to the 
consideration of it, I will not now press it. The mo- 
I tion was, that hereafter we meet at nine o'clock in 
j the morning and sit till five, with the usual recess, 

and not have evening sessions. 
I The PRESIDENT. It must first be ascertained 
! whether there is any new business to be introduced, 
as I am told this is the last day for receiving it. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Certainly, I give way. ' 
i The PRESIDENT. If there is new business to 
I be now introduced, gentlemen will please take ad- 
' vantage of the opportunity. 



175 



LIMITATION OF DEBATE. 

Mr. PARKER, of Virginia. My resolution, rela- 
tive to limiting debate, was placed on the Calendar, 
I find. That was without any motion made by my- 
self or any other member on the floor ; but I gave 
notice of the resolution, had it read, and the notice 
I gave was that I should offer it this morning. I 
would ask that the House may hear the resolution, 
so that we may determine 'whether it shall be 
adopted or not. We are now in the third week, 
and appj'oaching the end of the ordinary time in 
which a convention like this continues in session. 
Our members are now leaving us, and by the end of 
this week many, many more will have left. Their 
engagements at home, especially among the lay- 
men, will necessarily take them away. 

My resolution is that from this time speeches on 
any 'one subject shall be limited to fifteen minutes, 
and that no one shall speak more than once on one 
subject, except (and it is a proper exception) by ex- 
press leave of the House. If there is an;f matter 
which cannot be fully explained in the fifteen min- 
utes, and the House is receiving instruction from the 
person who is presentiiig it, we know that the time 
will be extended. The result will be, if the speeches 
are left open as they are now on the great 
questions awaiting our action, many of them 
will be acted upon when a very large portion of the 
members have gone from here." They are matters in 
which we feel a great interest ; they are matters, 
most of them, which we have all considered, and on 
which many of us have views that are decided. I 
think, therefore, if the House will permit this reso- 
lution to come up, we can at once determine whether 
we shall have discussion on subjects unlimited as 
heretofore. I ask for a vote on taking up the reso- 
lution. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the resolu- 
tion, of which notice was given yesterday by the 
gentleman from Virginia, be now taken up and con- 
sidered. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin, and others. 
I object. 

The PRESIDENT. The objection amounts to 
nothing unless it comes from one-third of the House. 
The Chair will put the question. 

The motion was agreed to, and the House pro- 
ceeded to consider the following resolution : 

" Resolved,- That during the remainder of the ses- 
sion no Deputy shall speak on any one subject more 
than once, nor more than fifteen minutes at any one 
time, except by leave of the House expressly' given." 

Mr. PARKER, of Virginia. I now move that 
the resolution be adopted. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I ask whether the 
mover has any objection to the substitution of the 
word "question " instead of "subject" ? 

Mr. PARKER, of Virginia. None; I think it wiU 
be the more appropriate form. I accept the amend- 
ment. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. It seems 
to me a very vmf aii' business to propose that on the 
very gravest questions that can possibly come be- 
fore any General Convention of thi? Church debate 
shall be limited to fifteen minutes, because there 
are members of this House who want to go home, 
or because the Deputies from Virginia have 
made up their minds upon them. The ques- 
tion which is to come before us on Monday is 
of the very gravest possible character. It is 
either a question of doctrine or it is a sham, 
and I desire to say that it seems to me eminently 
improper that any man who has anything on so 
grave a subject as the question of Ritual to present 
to this House, should be limited in this way when 
fifteen minutes is so short a time as to make it ut- 
terly impossible for him to present his views dm'ing 
that brief period in any clear, proper, and con- 



I nected way. I, therefore, for my own part, would 
beg of this House that they will not pass, at this 
pi esent time, any measm-e limiting debate. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I beg leave to 
second with my whole heart and soul the opinion 
expressed by my colleague from Wisconsin. Every 
person that 'is in this House, whether clerical or lay, 
knows and understands that certain questions which 
are to come before us are of a most important 
kind ; that they need the most distinct elucidation, 
and that there are gentlemen here whose minds are 
full of them, and who wish to speak distinctly 
to them. And here I may refer to the fact 
that in a former Convention the distinguished 

I gentleman, my colleague, who has just made this 
appeal to you, was, I should say, choked off by the 
Convention and prevented from" giving sufiicient il- 
lustrations of the cause which he pleaded. I hope 
that this Convention will allow, until that question 
has been disposed of, imlimited time to any gentleman 
who wishes to speak in the aflirmative or in the 
negative upon the Canon which has been brought 
to this House from the Committee on Canons, and 
which is to come before us on Monday. I think that 
the sense of honesty, equity, .and justice which be- 
longs to us as gentlemen, as Chi'istians, and* as Cler- 
gy and Laity in this House, will prevent any limit- 
ation of debate, at least until the question" of the 
Canon of Ritual has been decided fully and com- 
pletely by this House. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Mr. President, 
I fuUy agree with the two last speakers that this is 
not the time to limit debate. Not only is there the 
question of Ritual, but there are questions which I 
regard as quite as important — that relating to the 
Prayer-Book, the Canon on Divorce, and 
others — which are too important to be passed 
over by merely an exchange of conversation, 
which is all that can be done if you are to 
limit the debate to fifteen minutes by each speaker. 
I generally, when I think it my duty to speak, speak 
only to one point, and fifteen minutes are usually 
enough for me ; but I know that there are brethren 
here whose minds are more capacious, and who can 
express themselves more largely and more fully upon 
every subject, and they require more time. " I am 
therefore opposed to any limitation at the present 
time. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I rise to pro- 
pose an amendment to the resolution ; and that is, 
for "fifteen minutes, "there be substituted "thiiiy 
minutes, " for unless that be done a large .number 
of men on this floor, who may desire to say some- 
thing on these topics, and who may have as good a 
right to be heard as any others, will not have that 
privilege. The result will be that only a few indi- 
viduals will be able to express their opinions in ex- 
tenso. Most of us who have attempted to obtain 
the floor already and have been disappointed T^-iU be 
again disappointed. 

Mr. PARKER, of Virginia. I will accept that 
amendment, or I will withdraw the whole proposi- 
tion if it is to give rise to a protracted debate. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I believe I 
have the floor. The result of the passage of this 
amendment will be to oblige the members of the 
House to study condensation, and there is no argu- 
ment on any of these topics likely to be adduced 
here which cannot be concentrated within the space 
of a half hour. I venture to say that of all the 
speeches which have been delivered on this floor there 
is not one the wbol^ thought of which might not 
have been delivered m one-fourth part of the time 

Rev. Dr. l^ERKLEY, of Missouri. The last Line 
of the first article of the Constitution settles the 
question by stating that " in aU business of the Con- 
vention, freedom of debate shaU be allowed." 



176 



The PRESIDENT. That point has been over- 
raled in this Convention for the last thirty years. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. My speech 
will be very short. Before the vote is taken — 

The PRESIDENT. Let me ascertain, in the first 
place, whether the resolution is withdrawn, or 
whether the House gives leave to withdraw it. 

Mr. PARKER, of Virginia. I accepted the 
amendment to insert thirty minutes in the place of 
fifteen. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution wiU be modified. 

Mr. PARKER, of Virginia. I would say in 
answer to the Clerical Deputy from V/isconsin [Dr. 
De Koven] that I am always instructed by what falls 
from him, and shall always be ready to extend any 
time that he wishes, foi* I know that he always 
speaks to the question and not unnecessarily. 

Mr. LIVINilSTON, of New York I ask that 
the question be divided. It involves two subjects. 
One is the question whether we will hold that the 
rules of order heretofore adopted are unjust, and the 
other is the time to which speakers shall be confined. 
One part of the motion of the gentleman from 
Virginia is that no speaker shall be allowed to 
address the House on any one question or subject 
more than once. The rule of the House now is that 
he shall have the right to address the House twice. 
I submit that it is but simple justice that a gentle- 
man may sometimes be permitted to reply to at- 
tacks that may have been made upon his argument. 
I think that rule, as it now stands, is eminently just, 
and I shall vote against that part of the resolution 
which modifies it, if I be permitted to do so, while 
I am in favor of the thirty minutes' limitation. 

Rev. Dr. MINNIGERODE, of Virginia. I move 
that the whole matter be laid on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the resolu- 
tion be laid on the table. 

The motion v/as not agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. That part of the resolution 
which denies a speaker the rigiit to occupy the floor 
twice will have to be passed by a two-thirds vote, 
because it repeals a rule. 

Mr. PARKER, of Virginia. T modify the reso- 
lution by withdrawing that part of it. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Does not the rule say that if notice is given the day 
before it does not require a two-thirds vote ? I un- 
derstand the gentleman to have given notice yester- 
day. 

The PRESIDENT. It is unnecessary to answer 
that question now, because the gentleman from Vir- 
ginia nas withdrawn that part of the resolution. The 
question is on the resolution as now amended. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. The 
gentleman withdrew it upon the ruling of the Chair, 
that it required a two-thirds vote. I now ask wheth- 
er it does require a two-thirds vote, he having given 
notice yesterday of his intention to move it. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. That question is 
not before the House. 

The PRESIDENT. The point of order is not sus- 
tained. It would require a two-thirds vote if there 
were a week's notice. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
That is all I wanted to know. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I wish to suggest 
that we ought to provide, if it be practicable, that 
no member shall be interrupted by questions. I was 
compelled to make a speech yesterday of an hour, 
and inflict myself on the House for that length of 
time, when I could have said all I had to say in fif- 
teen or twenty minutes if I had been let alone. 

The PRESIDENT. I will try to take care of that 
for the future. The question is on the resolution as 
amended, to limit speakers on any question which 
may hereafter arise to thirty minutes each. 

The resolution was agreed to. 



I CHAPLAINS IN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. 

i Mr. ANDREWS, of Ohio, submitted the follow- 
I ing resolution, which ^was referred to the Commit- 
; tee on Canons : 

I " Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
i instructed to enquire whether, in their judgment, 
i Chaplains in Theological Seminaries and Divinity 
; Schools should be placed under the charge of the 
j President or Chaplains thereof, and, if they shall 
i deem it expedient, report a Canon thereon for the 
I action of this House." 
I 

I ABANDONMENT OF THE CHURCH. 

j Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I have a resolu- 
tion of the same kind to be referred to the Com- 
mittee on Canons. 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be in- 
structed to enquire and report whether any change 
in Canon 6 of Title II. be necessary to more effec- 
tually carry out the purpose thereof." 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany, submitted the following 
resolution, which was referred to the Committee on 
Canons: 

"Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee 
on Canons to consider and report as to what rules, 
if any, should be adopted to regulate the procedure 
of this House in its action upon the testimonials of 
Bishops-elect, especially in regard to the time and 
manner in which charges or objections shall be re- 
ceived or entertained, the kind and nature of the ev- 
idence to be admitted in regard to such charges or 
objections, and, fiaaally, any such rules or reg- 
ulations as in their judgment would tend to secure a 
just, fair, and orderly examination of the matter to 
be determined upon by this House." 

SUPPLEMENTARY DEPUTIES. 

Rev. Mr. JOHNSON, of Connecticut, submitted 
the following resolution, which was referred to the 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution: 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Amendments 
to the Constitution be instructed to enquire whether 
an amendment to Article 2 is n ot necessary in order 
that Supplementary Deputies may rightfully be 
admitted to fill vacancies occurring at any session 
of the Convention." 

DISCIPLINE OF COMMUNICANTS. 

The PRESIDENT appointed as the members, on the 
part of the House of Deputies, of the Joint Com- 
mittee, ordered by the resolution of Rev. Mr. Ship- 
man, of Kentucky, in relation to the discipline of the 
laity, adopted yesterday, Rev. Mr. Shipman, of 
Kentucky ; Rev. Dr. Stearns, of Easton ; Rev. Dr. 
Beers, of Albany; Mr. Dawson, of Alabama; Mr. 
McWhorter, of Central New York, and Mr. Simp- 
son, of Missouri. 

laOURS OF SESSION. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. At 
the suggestion of the Chair, I yielded the floor a 
while ago for the purpose of allowing the introduc- 
tion of new matter. I now move that our sessions 
shall hereafter commence at nine o'clock in the 
morning and terminate for the day at five, with the 
usual recess. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Allow me to 
call attention to the fact that you have fixed a very 
important order for Tuesday evening, at eight 
o'clock— the consideration of the election of a 
Missionary Bishop for China. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York 



Then I will say "excepting Tuesday evening," so 
that we shall meet here at nine o'clock, and termi- 
nate the dailj' session at five, and have no evening 
session, except on Tuesday, 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New- Jersey. It is easy for 
us to change the order for eight o'clock Tuesday 
evening to some other hovir, and if that be the only 
obstacle in the way, I do not know why we should 
not immediately pass the resolution just offered. 
There are very important Committees tha,t must 
meet in the evening; the Board of Missions must 
meet in the evening; and it is a weariness to the 
flesh to be here longer than from nine or ten 
o'clock in the morning vmtil five in the afternoon, 
and gentlemen will be in a much better condition to 
transact business rapidly and properly if their phys- 
ical condition is in good order. I hope the motion 
will prevail. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
T.xathdraw the exception of Tuesday evening ; and 
that order can be changed afterwards. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion is that the daily 
sessions of the House be from nine o'clock to five, 
with the usual recess. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I would move 
an amendment to meet at nine and a-half o'clock. 
Committees have to meet in the morning ; some of 
them have no other opportunity to attend to their 
duties. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the 
amendment to change the hoiir of meeting to half- 
past nine o'clock. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the 
resolution to meet at nine o'clock and adjourn at 
five, with the usual recess. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

MISSIONARY BISHOP FOR CHINA. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. I move that 
the order assigned for Tuesday evening be trans- 
ferred to and made the order of the day for Wed- 
nesday, at twelve o'clock. That gets rid of the dif- 
ficulty that has arisen in regard to Tuesday even- 
ing. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I call for the order 
of the day. That matter can come up on Monday. 
I ask that we now proceed with the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT. This motion can be passed in 
a moment. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. Very well. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
of Dr. Clark, of New Jersey, to change the order of 
the day for Tuesday evening to Wednesday at twelve 
o'clock M. 

The motion was agreed to. 

PLACE OF NEXT MEETING. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Is the Calendar 
now in order ? 
The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that the 
resolution No. 21 on the Calendar be taken up. It 
relates simply to the place of holding the next Con- 
vention. I believe we have not yet resolved to hold 
a permanent session, though my friend from Mis- 
souri (Rev. Dr. Berkley) suggested it. If we are not 
to hold a permanent session to continue for ever, we 
must arrange for some place to sit next. My mo- 
tion is that that resolution be taken up. It will not 
require debate. 

't he PRESIDENT. It is moved to take up the res- 
olution offered this morning by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, and now on the Calendar as No. 21. 

The motion was not agreed to, two-thirds not vot- 
ing in favor thereof. 

PART OF TEXAS BECOMING- MISSIONARY GROUND. 

Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I wish to give notice of 



a motion to reconsider, not that I suppose it to be 
positively necessary, but it may be. I move the 
reconsideration of the vote of non-concurrence this 
morning in the message of the House of Bishops, No. 
34, ajid I wish my motion to remain as it is, simply 
to save rights. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion to reconsider will 
be entered. 

A message from the House of Bishops (No. 38) 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

" Resolved, That this House request the appoint- 
ment of a Committee of Conference on the part of 
the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in relation 
to its message (No. 26), and has appointed the fol- 
lowing as such Committee on the part of the House: 
The Bishops of Maryland, Rhode Island, and Louisi- 
ana, being the Standing Committee of this House on 
Amendments to the Constitution." 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move that the 
Committee on Constitutional Amendments be the 
Committee of Conference on the part of this House. 

The motion was agreed to. 

(This message is in regard to the action of the 
House of Deputies this morning on Message No. 34 
of the House of Bishops.) 

RELATIONS WITH THE CHURCH IN CANADA. 

The PRESIDENT. The Calendar is the order of 
the day now before the House. The first business 
on the Calendar is the report from the Joint Special 
Committee on Relations with the Church in Cana- 
da. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I wish sim- 
ply to say a very few words in presenting the report 
of the Joint Special Committee on Relations with the 
Church in Canada. It will be seen on the first page 
of the printed document that there ai e given the 
names of the Jomt Committee of tiiis House with the 
upper one, and also of the Committee of the Cana- 
dian Church. I have simply to say that the Cana- 
dian deputation expressed the greatest earnest- 
ness that these resolutions, if they should com- 
mend themselves to the General Convention, should 
be passed. I do not propose to go into any state- 
ment in regard to the several resolutions. The first 
concerns, I suppose, simply and only the Church of 
Canada. It will explain itself. The second is one 
touching the passing backward or forward, into 
Canada or from Canada, into the United 
States of members of our Church. That 
also, I think, wiU explain itself. The object is to 
place at once, as, I think, the resolution shows, the 
several persons going between the two countries 
under the care of the Church, who shall look after 
them and protect them from the various tempta- 
tions which are laid in their way to di aw them into 
other religious bodies, and also for their own tem- 
poral and spiritual good. 

With regard to the third resolution, which also ex- 
plains itself, evidence was produced before the Joint 
Committee that the Church on either side of the line 
was exposed to great damage and injury by adven- 
turers representing themselves to be clergymen in 
good standing in the one Church or in the other. 

The fourth resolution, offered by the Rev. Dr. 
Vinton, of Massachusetts, touches the matter of 
assigning to the Canadian Church a certain depart- 
ment in our pamphlet, known as "The Spirit of 
Missions." It was thought by the Canadian depu- 
tation that a great deal could be learned by the 
Church in the United States in their treatment, es- 
pecially of the Indians, from the action in that par- 
ticular of the Church in Canada. On the other 
hand they thought that a great deal could be 
learned from us by them in regard to that same 
part of our Missionary enterprise. Moreover, it 
was thought that it would tend to increase the zeal 



in the Missionary work of both these Churches, if 
there were some sort of publication passing through 
the Churches, the two in common. This is enough 
on that resolution. 

The fifth resolution is simply one expressing the 
opinion that it is desirable that this Joint Commit- 
tee should continue in existence. That also ex- 
plains itself. 

The sixth resolution is simply with regard to 
the spreading of the action of the J oint Committee 
before the General Convention and the Provincial 
Synod of Canada. 

Then the seventh resolution offered by the Bishop 
of i^ong Island is expressed in these words : 

"That as it has been found impracticable to com- 
plete the business assigned to it, the Joint Com- 
mittee ask to be continued until the next Genera,! 
Convention." 

It was thought that between this time and the 
meeting of the next General Convention various 
ma,tters of interest in these several particulars 
naturalh)^ and most surely would come up, and 
that, therefore, conference would be necessary in 
order to present these things in some proper form 
before that General Convention. 

The document is now before the House for their 
action. I move that the second resolution be 
adopted. 

The PRESIDENT. Do you ask for no action on 
the first resolution ? 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. That, I 
think, concerns the Church in Canada. WiU the 
Secretary read that ? 

The Secretary read the first resolution, as fol- 
lows : 

"Resolved, That it be recommended that it be 
made by the Provincial Synod of Canada the duty 
of all Bishops in the Canadian Church to require 
testimonials and letters dimissory from the 
Bishop of the Diocese in which a clergyman has 
last served, before granting such clergyman a li- 
cense — if it be found that the case is not already pro- 
vided for. " 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I move 
that it be adopted. These papers were distributed 
at so late a moment that I was unable to look over 
the resolutions fully. Our action wiU add the force 
of our vote to the recommendation. I therefore 
move that the fii'st resolution be adopted. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER. I now move the adoption 
of the second resolution in the following words: 

" Resolved, That clergymen having charge of par- 
ishes and missions be requested to furnish families 
and individuals in their respective cures v/ho are 
about to emigrate to the United States or to Canada 
such letters of comnienda,tion, and other information 
touching their character and wants, as will secure 
to them, upon their arrival, fraternal welcome and 
pastoral sympathy and care in the common fold in 
which they have been nurtured; and that, when 
practicable, duplicate letters be sent to the clergy- 
men under whose parochial charge the person or 
persons immigrating may come." 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
The first resolution relates to the action of the Cana- 
dian Church in reference to clergymen coming from 
there here. I enquire of the gentleman who made 
this report whether we have any reciprocal action in 
reference to clergymen going from here there ? It 
seems to me verj^ ungracious that we should recom- 
mend that the Canadian Church certify the clergy- 
men coming here, while we do not propose to certify 
our clergymen going there. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I think 
the English laws protect them in that particular, 
althougli I do not know how the matter stands. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New Jersey. It is just the 



I reverse: " That it be recommended that it be made 
by the Provincial Synod of Canada the duty of all 

' Bishops in the Canadian Church to require testi- 

I timonials and letters dimissory from the Bishop of 

': the Diocese." 

That is, the Bishops of the Church in Canada are 

I to require testimonials from American clergymen. 

i We now have a law requiring testimonials from 

' all clergymen ordained by foreign Bishops. 

1 Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
That is satisfactory. I wanted to know if it was 
reciprocal. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Tennessee. I now move 
the adoption of the second resolution. 
The resolution was adopted. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I now 
move the adoption of the third resolution, in the 
following words : 

"Resolved, That on the suspension or deposition 
of any clergyman from the ministry by a Bishop of 
either Church, notice of the same shall be given by 
the Bishop suspending or deposing said clergyman 
to all the other Bishops of the Church in the United 
States and in British North America." 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. This has the force 
of a Canon: "notice of the same shall be given." I 
suggest that it be " recommended." We cannot pass 
a Canon obliging our Bishops to send notice of depo- 
sitions to the Canadian Bishops by a resolution 
simplj^. 

The PRESIDENT. It is not a Canon; it is only 
a resolution. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. But it says 
" shall be given." 

The PRESIDENT. Yes; but it is only a resolu- 
tion after all. 

The resolution was adopted. 

Rev. Dr. P^UDDER, of Pennsylvania. I move 
the adoption of the fourth resolution, in the follow- 
ing words : 

" Resolved, That until some organ for collecting 
and diffusing missionary information be established 
by the Church in Canada, it be recommended to the 
Board of Missions to take order that a department 
of the ' Spirit of Missions ' be devoted to the use of 
the Canadian Church, under an editor to be ap- 
pointed by that Church, in order that each Church 
may Imow what the other is doing to preach the 
Gospel to all men. " 

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. I think it 
is worthy of enquiry what extent of space is to be 
occupied, and what expense will be involved. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I do not 
understand that it is to add to our expenses at all. . 
That department will necessarily be a small one. It 
will tend to the circulation of the "Spirit of Mis- 
sions " in Canada. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York, It is only a re- 
commendation. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Only a 
reconnnendation endorsed by this House ; and the 
general impression is that, instead of being a loss 
pecuniarily to the " Spirit of Missions," it will tend 
very largely to its pecuniary benefit. It will in- 
crease its circulation in Canada by making it the 
Canadian organ of missions as well as our organ of 
missions. 

The resolution was adopted. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I move 
the adoption of the fifth resolution, which is in the 
I following words : 

j "Resolved, That it is desirable that this Joint 
j Committee should continue in existence, and hold its 
sessions and prosecute its Avork during the next three 
i years, by cori-espondence or otherwise, in order that 
such measures as have been suggested may be fur- 
ther matured, and reported to the General Conven- 
tion and the Provincial Synod of 1877." 



179 



The resolution was adopted. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. The sixth 
resolution simply concerns the Committee itself rela- 
tive to copies of its proceedings. That has been at- 
tended to. I move the adoption of the seventh reso- 
lution, in the following words : 

" Resolved, That as it has been found impractica- 
ble to complete the business assigned to it, the Joint 
Committee ask to be continued imtil the next Gene- 
eral Convention." 

The resolution was adopted. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the resolu- 
tions be adopted as a whole. 
The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. Allow me to ask 
whether it is not proper that the House of Bishop s 
should be notified of our action on these resolutions ? 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I should 
suppose so, as they refer to a Joint Committee. 1 
move that a copy of the action of this House be sent 
to the House of Bishops. 

The motion was agreed to. 

TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Cal- 
endar is the report of the Committee on Canons re- 
specting the proposed amendment to Sections 2 and 
3, of Canon 13, of Title I., of the Digest. The Com- 
mittee were instructed to enquire into the propriety 
of amending those sections, so as to provide that the 
testimonials of Bishops-elect shall be sent to the sev- 
eral Diocesan Standing Committees, and to the sev- 
eral Bishops in aU cases, instead of as now to the 
General Convention, within six months of the meet- 
ing of that body. The Committee reported the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
amendment to Sections 2 and 3, of Canon 13, of 
Title I. of the Digest." 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. May I ask 
whether that report comes from the Committee on 
Canons unanimously ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Inasmuch as no 
member of the Committee on Canons rises to oppose 
the report, it may be presiuned that it met the 
unanimous sanction of the Committee. I do not say, 
however, that it did. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The question 
having been asked whether the Committee on Can- 
ons was mianimous in this report, I respectfully 
beg to say that the Committee was not unanimous. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I offer a sub- 
stitute for the resolution reported by the Com- 
mittee : 

"Resolved, That the resolution reported by the 
Committee on Canons in the matter of the proposed 
amendment of Sections 2 and 3, of Canon 13, of 
Title I. , be amended by striking out ali after l^ie 
word 'resolved,' and inserting the folio v«^ing : 
' That Sections 2 and 3, of Canon 13, Title I., be 
stricken out, and there be inserted instead thereof 
the following : 

'"Sec. 2. [I.] Whenever the Church in any Dio- 
cese shall have elected a Bishop, the Standing Com- 
mittee of the Church in such Diocese shall, by their 
President or by some other person or persons spe- 
cially appointed, communicate to the Standing 
Committees of the Church in the different Dio- 
ceses evidence of such election, together with a 
copy of a certificate signed by a constitutional ma- 
jority of the members of the Diocesan Convention, 
which certificate shall be in the words following, 
viz. ' " 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Is there any 
change in that testimonial ? 
Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. No change. 



Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Then it is not 
worth while to read it. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I will not read 
it, but will pass on. 

"And if the majority number of the Standing 
Committees shall consent to the Consecration of 
such Bishop-elect, the Standing Committee of the 
Diocese concerned shall forward the evidence of such 
consent, together with other testimonials, to the Pre- 
siding Bishop of the House of Bishops, or in case of his 
death to the Bishop who, according to the rules of 
the House of Bishops, is to preside at the next General 
Convention, who shall communicate the same to all 
the Bishops of this Church in the United States; 
and if a majority of the Bishops consent to the con- 
secration, the Presiding Bishop or Bishops aforesaid, 
with any two Bishops, may proceed to perform the 
same, or any three Bishops to whom he may com- 
municate the testimonials. 

"[2.] The evidence of the consent of the different 
Standing Committees shall be in the words follow- 
ing." 

That form is the same as before, and so I need not 
read it. 

" Resolved, That the subsequent sections of the 
Canon be numbered to correspond." 

I desire, Mr. President, in a few words, to explain 
this propasition, which is offered as a substitute for 
the resolution reported by the Committee. 

An adverse report from a standing committee 
of this House throws the burden of proof 
on the friends of the measure adversely reported 
upon. That burden I do not think in the present 
case a heavy one. At any rate, I think the practical 
argument of the past eight or ten consecutive days 
of this Convention is sufficient to counterbalance 
any argument that may be brought forward in 
favor of the present arrangement. I have made my 
proposed modification of the present Canon as little 
as possible to accomplish the purpose. 

Of course, if it meets the approbation of the House, 
it will be referred as a matter of form to the Com- 
mittee on Canons to see that it is in proper shape. 

In the absence of any reasons given by the Com- 
mittee for the report, we are left to conjecture. I 
suppose it will be said that this Convention, being 
the grand council of the whole Church, is the pro- 
per tribunal to pass upon the credentials and quali- 
fications of Bishops-elect. If we were disposed 
to grant this, nevertheless it has so 
many exceptions as practically to do away with the 
value of the rule. Even if we took it on an average, 
there would be five exceptions to one application of 
the rule. If the election of a Bishop hap- 
pens within six months of the meeting of the 
General Convention, the testimonials are re- 
quired to come before this House ; but there 
are six times six months in the three years 

I that intervene between two General Conventions; 

j and therefore the application of the rule, even on 
the general average, would be only as one out of six — 
five exceptions to one application of the rule. 

But there are more exceptions. The creation of 
every new Diocese is consummated by the General 
Convention, and accordingly it so happens that the 
first Bishop-elect of any new Diocese has his cre- 

i dentials, as a matter of course, sent to the Diocesan 
Standing Committees, so that you will see that there 
are more than five exceptions ; probably eight or 
ten exceptions to one application of the rule. 

But it may be said that even that one application 
of the rule, occurring rarely, may still serve as a reg- 
ulator and a caution to the Standing Committees, and 
that therefore it is of value. I think we are estopped 
from that argument by the secrecy which we im- 
posed on ourselves in the action of the House during 
the past eight or ten days. We have not allowed 
the discussion here to go out to the world. 



180 



The members of the Standing Committees 
of the Dioceses, except those few who may happen 
to be members of the body, have not had the benefit 
of them. Besides, admitting the benefit to the full- 
est extent, it seems to me that it is purchased at too 
dear a cost. It is purchased at the expense of the 
general legislation of the Church which is waiting 
for the action of this body. W e have spent now 
nearly sixteen days of this session ; but four remain 
to us unless we prolong the session beyond the aver- 
age of the past G eneral Conventions ; and we have 
hardly begun the general business of the Conven- 
tion. We have lost the opportunity of transacting 
much important business by the debate that has 
taken place necessarily under the circumstances, but 
which I think ought to be, if it can be, avoided 
hereafter. 

It seems to me, therefore, that if we adopt this 
resolution and send the credentials in all cases to the 
Standing Committees of the Dioceses, we shall be 
doing a good work for the Church, we shall be al- 
lowing the General Convention to transact that 
business for which alone it is competent, and we 
shall not have that business superseded by business 
which can be and which is in five cases out of six, if 
not in eight or nine cases out of ten, transacted by 
the Standing Committees. I do not think it needs 
many words to enforce this. I hope that the other 
side will be presented to this House, if there is 
another side to the question, and that then the vote 
may be taken. 

Mr, WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, 
the reason I asked whether the Committee on 
Canons were unanimous was not because I believed 
them infallible, but because I believed that it is al- 
most impossible in this House to pass anything 
when they imanimously and earnestly oppose it. 
They get up in all parts of the House and protest. 
I must confess that I am in favor strongly of this 
proposed Canon, if the Committee on Canons will 
do their duty in another i-espect. 

The difficulty we have now is that our Canons are 
not in accordance with the Constitution of the 
Church. Whenever the Canons are made to accord 
with the Constitution this will be an admirable 
rule, for then we may rest assured that men will not 
be weighing the chances whether the General Con- 
vention or the Standing Committees will be most 
likely to pass a Bishop-elect. 

I ask the attention of the House for a moment to 
the principle on which this Church is established. 
They will find that in the second article of the Con- 
stitution it is declared positively: 

" The concurrence of both Orders shall be neces- 
sary to constitute a vote of the Convention. " 

There is no vote that is legal miless we can show 
that both orders concurred in it. Now, from some 
carelessness, or from some consideration relative to 
particular Dioceses, there are Standing Committees 
that are entirely unlike the Constitution of 
our Church. It may not be known to every 
Deputy in this Convention that in Coimecticut and 
Maryland no laity are on the Standing Commit- 
tees at 8.11, and there is nothing in our Canons that 
would prevent every Diocese from making its 
Standing Committee consist wholly of laity or 
wholly of clergy. We have a fundamental princi- 
ple, and yet we are authorizing other bodies to act in 
defiance of that principle. The Committee on Can- 
ons now have it before them to make the Standing 
Committees, so far as they act upon the business of 
the General Convention, to be represented as in the 
General Convention in fact. If they pass that Can- 
on and Wo adopt it here, then I think there will be 
no difficulty, or ought to be none, in the adoption 
of this proposed Canon of the Deputy from Easton. 
If by our Canons we require that the Standing 
Cominittees shall comprise the needful number of 



the laity and clergy, and require the concurrence 
of both orders to testify, I think what is now pro- 
posed would be practicable, and certainly in that 
case it would be more desirable than the present 
system. If the gentleman from Easton will accept 
an amendment that his resolution be sent to the 
Committee on Canons with insti actions to frame a 
Canon in accordance with the principle of the Con- 
stitution in the particular which I have suggested, I 
am perfectly willing that his proposition shall now 
be passed; if not, it should be delayed until the 
Committee act on the proposition referred to them 
yesterday on my motion. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I wish to refer 
the matter to the Committee, with instructions to 
frame a Canon in accordance with the principles of 
the Canon I have presented. Is there anything fur- 
ther that the gentleman desires ? 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Marjdand. Does the gen- 
tleman from Pennsylvania want a Canon framed to 
control the Dioceses in regard to their Constitutions, 
and a provision as to how Standing Committees are 
to be organized ? 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I do want a 
Canon framed by which every agency of this Con- 
vention to do the work that belongs to the Conven- 
tion shall be established upon the principle upon 
which the Convention acts. I know it has been 
contended by some extremists in the Church, though 
there is only one Diocese that I ever heard it from, 
that we have no right under our Constitution to 
touch the Constitution of a Diocese that preceded 
the Constitution of this General Convention. 
I remember, when that question was raised, 
! three gentlemen from this House, whose 
I names, if I were to give them, would be received 
with all respect, said in a careful report that there 
was nothing in that question, that the Constitution 
of this Church is to be obeyed by every Diocese. 
Why, sir, are we to allow the question of the conse- 
cration of Bishops to be decided by Standing Com- 
mittee consisting merely of clergy or merely of laity ? 
Again, suppose the Standing Committees ar e equally 
divided How do we know that both orders, con- 
curred ^ Perhaps all of the lait}^ were present and 
only one of the clergy, or aU of the clergj^ and only 
one layman. 

I think any gentleman who will examine the prin- 
ciple on which this Church is founded will see that 
we are bound, before we pass on this matter finally, 
to see that the Canons of the Church are made to con- 
form to the Constitution. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I should 
have been glad if the Committee on Canons had re- 
ported in favor of the repeal of these sections ; but, 
inasmuch as the report is otherwise, and the Com- 
mittee ask to be discharged from the further consid- 
eration of the subject, I am perfectly 
willing that that motion should be adopted, 
t^cause the whole matter will be prac- 
tically left to the Dioceses to decide whether 
they are willing to go into an election or not dui'ing 

I the six months. We cannot direct them what they 
shall do in this matter ; it will be for each Diocese 
to decide the question for itself, whether during the 
six months prior to the meeting of the General Con- 
vention they will take the responsibility of electing 
some one to be their Bishop, and send his name here 
and have him run the gauntlet. In every Diocese 

I there is provision made for calling special conven- 
tions. 

I therefore, without prolonging my speech, be- 
cause it is unnecessary, would simply say that we 
may as well leave these sections, and relegate the 
whole matter to each Diocese to decide for itself 
whether it is willing to have the name of a Bishop, 
} whom it shall elect, sent to this House on some fu- 
I ture occasion. ^ , 



181 



Mr. BRUNE, of Maryland. I trust, sir that the 

proposed chang e suggested by the Clerical Deputy 
from Eastou "will be adopted, and I take the libei'ty 
of speaking upon this question, because I occupy, in 
common with my lay colleagues from Maryland, 
the peculiar "position of representing one 
of the few Dioceses (if indeed there are 
any more) where the Standing: Committee 
is exclusively clerical. I wish, therefore, 
to raise my voice in tliis Convention to express 
the desire that hereafter the election of Bishop 
shall be remitted entirely to those Committees, not 
that I shall have, as an humble member of Maryland, 
any power in the matter, but to be free from it, and 
to let the clerical members of a committee which is 
entirely clerical judge of that question. What has 
been said by my friend from Easton is true, that we 
have had sad exi^erience of the matter ever coming 
before this body. It can have done no good ; but 
that is not fust now the question before us. 
The question is, shall we have the time of this Con- 
vention taken up hereafter with such matters ? Un- 
less that is necessary for the good of the Church, I 
think every one of us, as a practical man, will say 
that our time ought not to be taken up in this way 
when we have a limited session for the considera- 
tion of so many very important questions. It is 
surely a disadvantage to us to have to consider such 
questions during the short time we necessarily 
have. 

Then comes up the proposition suggested by the 
Clerical Deputy from New Jersey, which is a proof 
of the wisdom of making the general rule, that if 
the general rule is not adopted which is demanded, 
I think, by the needs of this Convention, it may be 
at any time practically resorted to by the will of 
the Diocese, which can evade the present rule in 
most cases by so arranging its election that 
the matter shall not come before the Gen- 
eral Convention, If there be a general rale 
that it must come before this body as the great 
inquest of the Church, then we ought to have a time 
set apart especially for such deliberations, and I 
trust that hereafter they will be public when we 
come to deal with such questions. But when we 
have only three weeks to deal with all the great 
questions of business before this Convention, that 
we should have one-half of that time taken up in 
deliberations about the fitness of a Bishop, when 
that matter should be passed upon quietly and 
calmly and deliberately in the different Dioceses, 
I think is not proper. 

I say that it is clear that we should follow the ad- 
vice of our friend from Easton and make the gen- 
eral rule that we shall have no more elections of 
Bishops coming before this body. 

One word in relation to the objection raised by 
the Deputy from Pennsylvania. I did not under- 
stand his constitutional objection. I believe, 
however, he meant to say that because 
there was in the Constitution a provision 
that when we in Convention come to vote 
by orders there must be a concurring 
vote, that rule should be apphed to the vot- 
ing of the Standing Committees. I say the cases 
are entirely different. The constitutional pro- 
vision is one thing, and the mode of constituting 
and electing Standing Committees is prescribed 
and given by the different Dioceses, and they may 
constitute their Standing Committees as they please. 
This is part of our law. They are of course chosen 
by the vote of the laity in the Diocesan Convention, 
but when they sit as a committee they act by their 
majorities, and not by any questions of order, un- 
less they choose to make that a part of theu* rules. 
But to apply the constitutional provision that when 
this House passes upon a question by orders there 
must be a concurrence of orders, to the matter of 



the Diocesan Standing Committees, is, I say, en;;^ 
tirely inadmissible. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi- 
dent, from long experience in this House, I have the 
impression that the Committee on Canons generalh^ 
manage to represent what is the average feeling of 
the House when they make a report. Now, I am 
entirely of the opinion that the election of a Bishop, 
or I should rather say the confirmation of a 
Bishop, ought never to be brought ' before 
this General Convention ; but I am also 
of opinion that in consequence of our recent 
debate here a constitutional majority of 
this House will be bound to vote this thing do^vn, 
because, if it should happen to be passed, it would 
seem like a reflection upon what has teen done in 
this Convention. Therefore they will be disposed to 
vote down a measure, which ought to pass upon its 
own merits. It would seem to me to be a very 
desirable thing that a measure so really deserving 
as this should not, at this moment, be press- 
ed upon the attention of this House. 
I suppose it will pass eventually ; but in the mean- 
time I beg leave to say that, as was suggested hj the 
Rev. Deputy from New Jersey, the matter is in the 
hands of the various Dioceses. 

I fancy that after this no Diocese which does not 
mean to'send up to this Convention a man who has 
the merit of being totally insignificant, will 
make the election six months before 
the Convention, and I beg leave to say to this 
House that I fancy still more that if there should be 
any Diocesan Convention that should elect a man 
who ever had said or done anything in his life 
which could possibly be discussed, that man would 
at once decline an"^ election to any Diocese which 
elects him within six months of the meeting of this 
General Convention. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I call the gentleman 
to order. His remarks are a reflection on the Dio- 
cese of -Wisconsin, which has sent a man here who 
has done something, as I understand. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I beg leave 
to say that the Diocese of Wisconsin did so before 
this "General Convention met. It never imagined 
that this General Convention could possibly do what 
it has done. That is the reaeon why it did so. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. It simply shows 
that it is possible to do the thing in Wisconsin. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Mr. President, I hope the resolution to which the 
Committee on Canons have come will be sustained 
by this House, and that the Committee will be dis- 
charged from the consideration of this subject. 
First, because a conclusion which has been reported 
by a committee such as that, as was suggested by 
the last speaker, presumptively will meet the ap- 
probation of the House. 

Now, sir, the question before us is this : shall 
Bishops be ratified by the vote of the House of Depu- 
ties, as the general rule, or by the action of a major- 
ity of the Standing Committees of the Dioceses i The 
general rule — not the exception, but the general rule 
— ^prescribed by our Canons is that all Bishops shall 
receive the approbation of this House. 

I call the attention of gentlemen to the lan- 
guage of the section under consideration, which is, 
without exception, a general enactment that all 
Bishops elected by the several Dioceses shall re- 
ceive the approbation of the House of Clerical and 
Lay Deputies, and shall receive their testimonial. 
This mode of enactment shows that in the mind of 
those who framed our Canons, it was thought desir- 
able that this House, representing the whole National 
Church, should pass upon the fitness in the particu- 
lars prescribed of every Bishop elected by a Diocese. 
And why ? For a reason which I have listened in 
vain to bear mentioned even now, or during the 



182 



Idng eight days' discussion we have had, and a very- 
important reason. This is the only body in the 
world that by its action can secure uniformity of re- 
ligious belief in the heads of the Church. If the 
right of electing a Bishop, without any other 
check, was left to the several Dioceses, each 
Diocese might have a pastor at its head 
who might be holding and practising dif- 
ferent , religious rites and ceremonies and 
doctrines from the heads of other Dioceses. We 
alone can alter the Prayer-Book ; we alone can 
alter any of the rules of practice, or prescribe or in- 
teruret the doctrines of the Church ; and when our 
action is required to approve a Bishop it tends to 
giA^e uniformity of faith and doctrine throughout 
all the Dioceses of this broad land. 

The provision that a standing Committee may act 
upon this matter is the exception. It goes on to 
state that if by reason of there being no General 
Convention within six months of the election there- 
after, it may go before the Standing Committees ; 
and it is expressed in this language : 

"If the Diocese electing a Bishop shall wish his 
consecration before the meeting of the next Greneral 
Convention, they may send it to the several Diocesan 
Standing Committees." 

Mr. President, the remark has been made here that 
the Dioceses have it in their power to evade this leg- 
islation and remit it in all cases to the Standing 
Committees of the Dioceses. Yes, sir, they have ; 
but I am not one of those who believe that the hon- 
orable bodies which represent the several 
Dioceses will seek to evade any general 
purpose of this Church when they see by 
the Canons that the general rule of this Church is 
that this House shall pass upon every Bishop-elect, 
and if a vacancy occurs within six months, I do not 
believe they will postpone an election until some 
future day. If they do, it will be a plain declara- 
tion that they expect to elect a Bishop not satisfac- 
tory to a majority of the Dioceses of these United 
States. They will have that burden upon them at 
least. 

I repeat that if a Diocese in which a vacancy oc- 
curs within six months of a General Convention 
shall vote to postpone the election of a Bishop till 
after the meeting of the next General Convention, 
it will be virtually a vote that they wish a Bishop 
who will not meet with the approval of all the Dio- 
ceses in the United States in General Convention. 
I do not believe any Diocese will wish to put itself 
before the Church of this nation in that attitude. 

I do not believe either with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, that this is a time to take action on this 
question. He made the most extraordinary declara- 
tion, for which, it seems to me, he was very properly 
called to order. 

The PRESIDENT. I hope that that declaration 
wiU not be commented upon. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
do not wish to comment upon it except as bearing 
on the merits. It is understood, I suppose — 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of AVisconsin. I beg leave 
to state that I was not called to order. The gentle- 
man from Long Island rose to a point of order and 
asked me a question. And I beg leave to say, if I 
may say it with due respect, that it is scarcely 
proper for the President of this House to comment 
upon the speech of any gentleman on this floor. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
shall not be out of order in mv comment. 

The PRESIDENT. I called the gentleman who is 
speaking to order, because he seemed to be approach- 
ing a certain part of Dr. De Koven's speech. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. With all due defer- 
ence to the Deputj^ from Wisconsin, I did call him 
to order. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not think the gentle- 



man was out of order upon the point that the 
Deputy from Long Island stated, but I think that 
he was out of order in reflecting upon the conduct 
of this House. The time for the recess has arrived, 
and the House will now take a recess until two 
o'clock. 

The recess having expired, the session of the 
House was resumed. 

RELIGIOUS REFORM ABROAD. 

The PRESIDENT appointed Rev. Dr. Haight, of 
New York, Rev. Dr. Schenck, of Long Island, Rev. 
Dr. Leeds, of Maryland, Rev. Dr. Fulton, of Ala- 
bama, Rev. Dr. Davies, of Pemisylvania, Mr. Rug- 
gies, of New York, Mr. Livingston, of New York, 
Mr. Mason, of Massachusetts, Mr. King, of Long Is- 
land, and Mr. Parker, of New Jersey, as members of 
the Joint Committee on Religious Reform Abroad 
and the relations of the Church thereto, provided 
for by a resolution reported this morning by Rev. 
Dr. Schenck. 

to-day's session. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I have been in- 
formed that at three o'clock to-day the use of 
this House will be required for preparation for Di- 
vine Service on to-morrow. I therefore move that 
we adjourn at three p.m. 

The motion was agreed to. 

SHORTENED SERVICES. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina, submitted 
the following report, which was read : 

The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
a proposed Amendment of Canon 20, Title I., "Of 
the Use of the Book of Common Prayer, intended 
to provide for the use of Shortened Services," respect 
fully report that in connection with this matter, 
and"^ also with the subject of Ritual, they have 
thought it expedient for them to consider the ques- 
tion of a general revision of the Rubrics. In the 
opinion of the Committee certain changes in the 
Rubrics seem desirable, provided they can be had 
without too seriously unsettling the established Lit- 
urgy. It is certainly desirable to avoid departures 
upon the plea of necessity from the present order of 
ser^^ces as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. 

The law of the Church upon this subject is con- 
tained in Article 8 of the Constitution, which 
appoints the use of a Book of Common Prayer and 
other offices of the Church, and indicates the mode 
in which alone changes can be made in it, and in 
Canon 20, of Title I. . which provides that the said 
Book of Common Prafver shall be used by every 
minister of the Church before all sermons and 
lectures, and upon all other occasions of puhlic 
worehip. 

The Committee are keenly alive to the great risk 
attending any attempt to open the Rubrics, or any 
part of the Book of Common Prayer, to revision. 
But they submit that these evils are less than those 
which they desire to escape. 
But your committee furthermore believe that cer- 
I tain changes are highly desirable on their own ac- 
count, and with a view to accomplish, among oth- 
ers, the following results, viz. : 

1. To provide shorter form of ser-^dce, public 
and private, upon certain occasions and in certain 
cases. 

2. To provide greater variety in the regular 
forms of public service. 

o. To provide for the separation, when so desired, 
of services now commonly used in connection. 

4. To remove obscurities in the present Rubric, 
and to supply deficiencies in the same, e. g., to de- 
fine, for ordei-'s sake, more accurately the postures 
to be observed, and the robes and ornaments to be 
used. 



5. To secure a better Lectionary, especially for 
Lent. 

6. To relieve tlie clergy, scrai)ulous in the observ- 
ance of the Rubric, from certain hardships now re- 
sulting- therefrom. 

But your Committee are persuaded that these 
changes, with the exception perhaps of the third, 
cannot be safely made e?ccept in the way provided for 
by Article 8 of the Constitu'"ion, which requires, in 
order to any alterations in the Book of Common 
Prayer or any additions thereto, that the same be 
proposed in one General Convention, and by a resolve 
thereof made known to the Convention of each Dio- 
cese, and adopted at the subsequent General Conven- 
tion. They think, moreover, that the greatest cau- 
tion should be used in such a work and great delibe- 
ration. And they would therefore recommend the 
appointment of a" Joint Commission on the Revision 
of the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, to 
report to the next General Convention, to which 
Commission the whole subject of shortened services 
and the j)roposed Lectionary should also be com- 
mitted. 

With reference to the shortened forms of public 
woi-ship i-ef erred to them, the Committee think that 
sufficient doubt rests upon the power of any one 
General Convention to do this by Canon, to render 
it mexpedient that the attempt be made, and that 
the matter should be either referred to the Joint 
Commission as aforesaid, or adopted as a separate 
act in this Convention, to be made known to the 
several Dioceses for confirmation in the next. 

But your Committee do not see the same difficul- 
ty in the third measure proposed, viz. : the sep- 
aration of the Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the 
Communion Office. The House of Bishops has al- 
ready' expressed its opinion that these services are 
separable, and that there is nothing in the present 
Rubrics to render necessary a reference of the subject 
to two General Conventions. They therefore recom- 
mend the following resolutions: 

-'1. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That it is the sense of this Convention that nothing 
in the present order of Common Prayer prohibits 
the separation, when desit able, of the Morning 
Prayer, the Litany, and the Order for the Adminis- 
tration of the Lord's Supper into distinct services, 
which may be used independently of each other, and 
either of them without the others. 

" Provided, That, when used together, they be 
used in the same order as that in which they have 
commonly been used, and in which they stand in the 
Book of Common Prayer. 

"2. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That a Joint Commission, consisting of seven Bish- 
ops, seven Presbyters, and seven laymen, be appoint- 
ed (the Presbyters and laymen to be chosen by ballot 
in the House of Deputies), to take into consideration 
the whole subject of Rubrical revision, among other 
things providing shortened and more varied ser- 
vices, and a new Lectio na,ry, and making such other 
suggestions as may seem judicious with respect to 
the services and offices of the Church ; and to report 
to the next General Convention. 

"By order of the Committee. 
"WM. COOPER MEAD, Chairman." 

Rev. Dr. WATSON", of North Carolina. I move 
that this report be printed, and made the order of 
the day for Thursday next, at twelve o'clock. I 
would like to move an earher hour if it were possi- 
ble, but I believe Wednesday is already assigned. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. May I ask 
a question ? There is one matter which I do not 
notice as having been treated of in either of 
these reports upon shortened services. 
Tn the Canon of shortened services presented 
originally by Dr. Haight, there was a provision that 
sermons and lectures could be given without the ser- 



' vice from the Book of Common Prayer preceding 
them. Now that is a matter which is provided for by 
Canon, so that we could easily pass that, even if we 
could not pass the other parts of a Canon of shortened 
sei-vices, and I did not notice any attention having 
been given to it. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. That is 
not provided for in this report, and I suppose that 
belongs really to an amendment of the twentieth 
I Canon ; but at the same time 1 would say that we 
' had all those shortened sei-vices under consideration, 
aud thought upon the whole it might be better to 
await some general action from a commission on the 
; subject, and not go piece-meal about it. 
j The PRESIDENT. It is moved that this report 
1 from the Committee on Canons be printed for the 
I use of the House, and made the order of the day for 
{ Thursday at twelve o'clock. 
I The motion was agreed to. 

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I rise to a ques- 
tion of privilege to make a statement. An appeal 
was made to me to advocate the withdrawal of a 
paper given to the Secretary by the Clerical Deputy 
from Alabama (Rev. Dr. Stringfellow) because I had 
not placed in possession of the House papers that I 
had read. I will make this statement, Mr. 
President : I have no doubt the person 
from whom I got the papers I read will 
grant that privilege. If he does not, I am 
perfectly willing to move for handing those papers 
back now in the possession of the House. Beyond 
all doubt, the papers I produced will be put in pos- 
session of the House on Monday. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would ask if 
there is any reason why the motion should not now 
be made that those papers be withdrawn ? 1 read a 
letter here — 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
beg leave to continue my remarks. 

The PRESIDENT. The order of the day is caUed 
for. 

USE OF BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Is it lawful 
for me to introduce now an amendment to Canon 20, 
covering the point which has not been treated of in 
the reports of the Committee on Canons ? 

The PRESIDENT. The order for the day has 
been called for, and the gentleman from Western 
New York is on the floor. I hope you will have the 
opportunity before we adjourn. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN. Will the gentleman allow 
me to make that motion ? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
I have no objection to j-ielding the floor to the gen- 
tleman long enough to oiier his resolution and put 
it on the Calendar. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I will 
make the following motion, and wiU write it out and 
hand it to the Secretary in a moment : that in 
Canon 20, of Title I, the v/ords "before all sermons 
and lectures, and, " and the word "other" be left 
out, so that the Canon will read as follows : 

" Every minister shall, on all occasions of public 
worship, use the Book of Common Prayer, as the 
same is, or may be, established by the authority of 
the General Convention of this Church ; and, in ner- 
f orming such service, no other prayers shall be used 
than those prescribed by the said Book." 

The only object in maldng the amendment is to 
permit persons to preach sermons, or deliver lec- 
tures, without the necessity of using the service 
in the Book of Common Prayer beforehand. I make 
that motion, and will write it out and give it to 
the Secretary, and have it referred to the Committee 
on Canons. 



The PRESIDENT. The question is on the mo- 
tion to refer the resohition to the Committee on 
Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT. 

The Convention resumed the consideration of the 
report of the Committee on Canons, rejecting 
the proposed amendment of Sections 2 and 3 
of Canon 1, of Title I., of the Digest, being in re- 
lation to the testimonials of Bishops-elect. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Mr. President, to resume. It is obvious that the scru- 
tiny to be given to any person elected as a Bishop de- 
pends upon two things : First, the prominence with 
which he has been before the Church and the pubhc ; 
and secondly, the number of witnesses testifying 
in the matter. ATid right here I wish to say that 
in the testimonial which this House gives each per- 
son is neither judge nor juror alone, but each person 
is a witness who is made to say that he testifies. He 
testifies in the presence of Almighty God, but he 
does not testify as in ordinary courts of justice. He 
testifies on information personal to himself, if you 
please, as well as on information which may be 
communicated to the body. 

I vv^ish attention to be drawn to this matter. This 
House, composed of four hundred members, is con- 
vened for each member to testify to his fellows as 
to the person under consideration, and in giving 
that testimony he acts upon information necessari- 
ly ; and the weight to be attached to the inf ormatio nis 
to be judged of by every member who gives his vote. 
Now when there are four hundred witnesses drawn 
from every portion of this broad land, all together 
testifying in the presence of Almighty God, wheth- 
er they are informed that he is justly liable 
to be reported for error in religion or viciousness 
of life, it is a formidable ordeal for any gentleman 
to pass through, and more formidable if he is vv^ell- 
known throughout the length and breadth of the 
land. It calls for a testimonial of such a charactei- 
that we may be sure from the rtsult that we fthall 
be right. 

That is the object of it. That is the rule, and that 
was the only rule until by the increase of the num- 
ber of Dioceses and of the number of Bishops, 
it became desirable, for mere convenience, 
that in certain cases if Dioceses wished it, 
they might submit the question to Diocesan 
bodies, to the Standing Committees, instead of to 
the body of the Convention. 

What do we have when it is submitted to the 
Diocesan bodies ^ We have bodies composed of 
from five to six, or seven, or eight members, of so 
many different Dioceses of the United States, and 
they also testify personally on information in 
reference to this same matter. The number of 
persons may not be very different, 
but they are not representative persons neces- 
sarily. In some cases, as we are told, they 
are simply clergymen, and the testimony only 
of his fellow-Presbyters is given; the testimony of 
the laity is not given. I do not Icnow but what we 
of the laity may be considered in one sense 
as those without ; and the Apostle says 
that a man who is to be a Bishop must 
have a good report not only with his fellow- 
Presbyters, but even those without — without the 
Church, I suppose, at any rate, those without the 
presbytery— and it is very important he should have 
a good report as well among laymen as among cler- 
gymen ; and I think that it is of great importance 
that he should have the good report of all men, and 
I think that is what the Apostle means. 

When the question is submitted to the Standing 
Committees of the Dioceses, we all know from the 
nature of the human mind and of the human char- ' 



acter that the few men composing a standing com- 
mittee will not feel at liberty to act with that bold- 
ness and that freedom with which three hundred 
men in consultation, as we are here, will act upon 
any subject. Influences may be brought to bear 
upon them, and personal motives will sway them 
in a way that will not sway such a body as this. 

With one moi-e thought I shall conclude my re- 
marks. It seems to me an intimation has been 
thrown out here that because of what gentlemen 
are pleased to call the extraordinary character of 
our action, for the eight days in which we were in 
secret session, this measui-e should be adopted. 

The PRESIDENT. I beg that no reference will 
be made to the secret session. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
I wish to bear my testimony, and to correct any 
impression that may have gone abroad, that it was 
the fact — and it is to the testimony of every mem- 
ber I have heard speak on the subject — that never 
in a body composed of many members, and can- 
vassing and discussing a question involving 
so much feeling, was a debate conducted with more 
decorum, with more coui'tesy, with more propriety, 
and never was one conducted with more honor to 
the Church and to its members in this Convention 
assembled ; and I may say that the more freely be- 
cause I took no part in the discussion. I listened pa- 
tiently to it all, to men on one side and on the other 
in the conflict of opinion, and I heard noth- 
ing but what was becoming to gentlemen. I 
wish to bear this testimony because I 
find it given in the papers and talked of among in- 
dividuals as if it were a scandal and a backbiting; 
and some who are feeling bad over the result on the 
I other side are willing to stigmatize it in that way. 
I am sure no member of this Convention will stig- 
matize our proceedings by giving them such a char- 
acter, but each and every one wiU bear testimony 
to the courtesy and propiiety— yes, sir, the 
brilliant eloquence, with which the whole 
matter w-as conducted. I could point those 
from without to the proceedings of this Convention 
not in secret session as to their character, as indi- 
cated by the full stenographic reports ; but it is not 
necessary here. In the whole history of this Chm'ch, 
so far as my memory goes, there never has been an 
instance in which a Bishop was subjected to the se- 
vere scrutiny which we gave the recent Bishop-elect 
of Illinois. Not since 1844, a whole gen- 
eration of man in the past, has there 
been any such occasion in this House. 
Does that furnish any argument against the prac- 
tice ? Have we not had Bishop on Bishop presented 
to this House for recommendation, and have we 
not passed upon them without discussion, without 
excitement, and without secret session ? If it does 
happen that there will occasionally be a name pre- 
sented to the House about which there may be such 
a difference of opinion as to call for the action 
we took, it is the strongest argument in the 
world why that name should come before such 
a body as this, and not go before the isolated bo- 
dies composing the Standing Committees of Dio- 
ceses. I say from what I heard on that occasion 
and from the result, I am fuUy sa,tisfied that the 
Church was honored, that the highest credit was se- 
cured to the Church, in the ophiion of every mem- 
ber of this Convention, by the manner in which 
the discussion was conducted. Members were 
brought from the remotest points of our great nation 
to hear all that could be said about the gentleman 
whose name was proposed, and they had the oppor- 
tunity of hearing the highest encomiums upon his 
character, as well as some criticisms which did not 
necessarily involve his own doctrinal error, and, in 
all that matter, no harai has been done to any one. 
I am glad to bear my testimony to the 



185 



fact that, so far as the result was concerned, 
it did not necessarily involve even any per- 
sonal error in religion or doctrine of the 
candidate himself ; it only involved the 
fact certified to by certificates, that a majority of 
the Dioceses in this Convention believed that he 
was justly liable to a report for error in religion or 
viciousness of life, and that might happen with the 
most innocent man in the world, il; by accident or 
other cause he had been placed under circumstances 
which would authoi'ize any reasonable man to draw 
the inference we did ; that is all. 

Ml-. MEADS, of Albany. The language of the 
gentleman seems to imj^ly that Dr. Seymour was 
open to evil report for both erroi" in religion and 
viciousness in life. I ask him whether he meant to 
include that ? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western Kew York. No, 
sir, there was not any intimation in this House that 
any viciousness of life had been charged, or that he 
was open to any evil report in regard to viciousness 
of life ; and I am glad to bear that testimony also. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, 
I do not wish to occupy the time of this Convention 
at this late hour. I wish simply to adduce before 
this Convention some of the reasons v/hich have not 
been alluded to. 

In regard to the confirmation of Bishops in the 
primitive Church, the election went on as our elec- 
tions do, and then it came before what was called 
the province ; that is to say, in the immediate 
portion of the Roman Empire that was dis- 
tinguished as a province, there was a Christian as- 
sembly, which Christian assembly was composed of 
Bishops and some of the Clergy and laity belonging 
to the cities in that province. That was the pro- 
vincial assembly, and before that provincial assem- 
bly peculiarly and especially as a matter of Chris- 
tian practice, universal over the Christian Church, 
came the confirmation of Bishops. Now, if you 
suppose that in this great State of New York 
there was a Bishop of the Church in every city, and 
that there was then an assembly meeting sometimes 
once in a year, and sometimes twice in a year, you 
can see the value of the scrutiny that such a body 
made upon the character of a Bishop-elect. They 
were men of the same State as we should say, in the 
same body, and they knew all things about 
the man. If there was any mistake 
whatsoever made by the Diocesan Council, they at 
once could rectify it. That was the method in 
which the scrutiny of the General Church in primi- 
tive times came to pass. All who look at it will 
say that it was a most perfect and entire method of 
scrutiny, because they were all members of a com- 
mon church in one state assembled together. 

Now, with regard to our Church we adoj^ted the 
method of Standing Committees. In regard to that 
method, I must honestly say that it seems to me to 
be hardly a scrutiny at aU, that in nine cases out of 
ten every Standing Committee acts merely on the 
testimonial, has no access to anything except simply 
that testimonial, and it is not properly a scrutmy in 
any shape or form which should correspond to the 
examination that each Bishop of the Church should 
have after he has passed the ordeal of an election. 

Now, sir, what does this method of ours, which is 
objected to on this day, amount to ? It simply 
amounts to this, that seeing we have a chance and 
opportunity of returning to the practice of the 
primitive Church once in every three years, we do 
it. And who are the men that brought this forward 
and made it a rule that in case the elec- 
tion of a Bishop should take place six 
months before the meeting of a General 
Convention, then we should return to the 
ancient practice ? I find with reference to the 
Canon of 1832, that in that Convention they appoint- 



ed a committee to examine the Canon on this sub- 
ject, and to report such amendments, alterations, 
and changes as should be deemed most suitable by 
them. The men who did that were who ? Bishop 
White, the Father of the Church ; Bishop Kemper, 
our first Missionary Bishop ; an able member 
of the legal profession, who is now alive, 
nearly at his one hundredth year, and 
with whose name every judge and every mem- 
ber of the legal profession is acquainted, and at 
whose name I might almost say every member of 
the legal profession pays homage — Horace Binney. 

I do not blame the proposer of this resolution "be- 
cause he desires to get rid of the trouble which has 
come on us at this time by doing what ? By casting 
out a primitive Christian practice which was intro- 
duced by these eminent men. 

I will say myself that I had nothing to do v/ith 
the debates which occupied us for nine days. I did 
not open my mouth in the matter ; but I listened. 
I was very much tired and fatigued, I confess ; but 
I recognize the Christian Convention of the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church, an assembly of gentlemen 
and of Christians, and no word was said there to 
hurt the feelings of any one, or to degrade the posi- 
tion in which we stand as the Great Council of this 
Church, and I am proud of the tone of those de- 
bates and of the course of action of each and ev- 
ery man of the different speakers to whom I lis- 
tened with a great deal of patience, but, I confess, 
a very great deal of tiredness. (Laughter.) 

Now, I do not think that this, Church is to go back. 
! I do not think that we are to become a mere little 
sect. I look to the time when in every city in the 
1 Union there shall be a Bishop of the Protestant 
I Episcopal Church, when in every State of the Union 
there shall be the old Provincial Council assembled 
once a year ; and I am very unwilling, on account 
of my personal experience, to cast aside a remnant 
of primitive action, which I am satisfied has 
been planted there by these great men as the seed of 
our future growth ; and therefore I hope that this 
Convention, in the faith of the progress of the 
Church, in the belief that the Christian Church in 
primitive times knew what they were doing, will 
leave this matter to stand, and be content, even in 
another case, to bear the tedium and difficulty of 
listening, for nine or ten days, to speeches by ten or 
twelve clergymen and laymen, whom we all esteem 
in this House. 

Conceding that the gentlemen who have brought 
forward this motion simply mistake the whole ma.t- 
ter, that they did not recognize the value of this 
scrutiny, that they are willing to submit it to that 
which, after all, is no scrutiny at all, 1 hope that 
this House will support the resolution reported to 
the House by the Committee on Cannons. I hope 
they will leave this remnant of Christian practice 
and Christian law still upon our books, to be the 
seed of a still better practice than we have now, in 
forthcoming generations. 

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. I rise to ask a 
question simply. Does a motion to lay this subject 
on the table carry with it the recommendation of 
the Committee ? 

The PRESIDENT. No, sir. 
. Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. Then I make 
the motion that the amendment be laid on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the amend- 
ment proposed by the gentleman from Ea^ston be 
laid on the table. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I ask for a vote 
by orders. 

The PRESIDENT. We cannot possibly take the 
vote by orders before the expiration of the time for 
this day's session. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. The clerical 
delegation from Easton demand a vote by orders 



186 



fyn the motion to lay on the table, because that 
motion disposes of the subject. If we could have a 
fair, square vote on the thing itself, in a full House, 
I would not call for a vote by orders. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western Kew York. I 
suggest to the gentleman that if the motion to lay 
on the table is agreed to, the question will then come 
up on' adopting the resolution discharging the Com- 
mittee. If the gentleman wishes to vote down the 
resolution discharging the Committee, he has the 
opportunity afterwards, and he can call for a vote 
by orders on that. If we lay this amend- 
ment on the table, the question will then recur 
on the original proposition, which is a resolution to 
adopt the report of the Committee ; and if the House 
vote that down, then they do not adopt the report 
of the Committee, and a motion to refer the matter 
back to the Committee to report a Canon to carry 
out the purpose would be in order. 

The PRESIDENT. If the call for a vote by Dio- 
ceses and orders is insisted upon, we shall have to 
postpone the subject until Monday morning. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. If the motion to 
lay on the table is withdrawn, I shall not insist on a 
vote by orders. 

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. I move to 
postpone the further consideration of this question 
till Monday. 

The PRESIDENT. That motion cannot be re- 
ceived unless the motion to lay on the table is with- 
drawn. 

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. I do not vAsh 
to withdraw my motion. 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. I hope the 
gentleman will withdraw it. There are a large 
number in this House in favor of the resolution, 
and I should like myself to hear more discussion on 
the subject. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I beg to suggest to 
the House that we compromise by agreeing that the 
vote on the motion to lay on the table, which 
is not debatable, shall be taken by orders 
when the question comes up for consideration 
on Monday, and that then the House adjourn. I 
desired some forty minutes ago to make a motion to 
pass this matter by till Monday, with the view to 
spend the remainder of our short time to-day in 
the consideration of questions on the Calendar which 
would excite no debate ; but that has 
passed, and I would say to my friend 
from Easton that I think in this condi- 
tion of our session all of us are fully prepared 
to decide this question without debate, and it is but 
just to the other orders of business that we should 
proceed with the Calendar. Perhaps it would be 
better now to adjourn. I move that the House 
adjourn. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the House 
do now adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the House ad- 
journed until Monday morning at nine o'clock. 



SEVENTEENTH DAY. 

Monday, October 26. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
nine a.m. 

Morning Prayer was said to the Creed by Rev. 
Edward R. Atwill, of Vermont. The Creed and 
Prayers were said by Rev. Archibald Beatty, of 
Kansas. The Benediction was pronounced by Rev. 
Owen P. Thackara, of Florida. 

The minutes of the proceedings of Saturday last 
were read and approved. 

INDIAN AFFAIRS. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I have a report 
which comes under the head of "unfinished busi- 



ness." On pages 234 and 254 of the Journal of the 
last Convention the unfinished business on which I 
propose to report will be found. On page 234 will 
be found the following resolution adopted by the 
House : 

' ' Whereas, The Chief Magistrate of the United 
States has asked for the co-operation of this Church, 
and of other religious bodies, in promoting the civili- 
zation of Indians by procuring for them moral and 
intelligent agents, by supervising their work, and 
by assisting those agents in training the Indians to 
industrial pursuits ; 

"And, whereas, The Domestic Committee of the 
Board of Missions has acceded to the request of the 
President of the United States so far as to nominate 
agents for certain tribes of Sioux and Ponca In- 
dians ; 

"And, whereas. It is important that the hands 
of those agents should be upheld by the Churches, 
and that the Indians should be protected in their 
rights ; therefore 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies ap- 
point a Standing Committee on Indian Affairs, 
composed of six laymen, to operate with the Board 
of Missions by supervising the secular work of the 
agencies under their care, by procuring such civili- 
zing agencies as the Governitnent does not provide, 
and by invoking the aid of the Government, and, if 
need be, the assistance of the courts, in protecting 
the rights of the Indians. " 

On page 254 it will be found that the House of 
Bishops did concur, and the President of this House 
appointed as members of the Committee on Indian 
Affairs : Mr. William Welsh, of the Diocese of 
Pennsylvania J Mr. Jno. W. Andrews, of the Diocese 
of Ohio ; Mr. Jno. W. Stevenson, of the Diocese of 
Kentucky; Mr. Hugh Sheffey, of the Diocese of 
Virginia; Mr. Benjamin Stark, of the Diocese of 
Connecticut ; Mr. Henry W. Hayden, of the Diocese 
of Michiga,n. Mr. Hayden is absent. The other 
members of the Committee concur in the report 
which I now present. 

"The Committee on Indian Affairs, appointed at 
the last session of the House of Deputies, with the 
concmTence of the House of Bishops (see pages 234 
and 254 of the Journal), respectfully report, that un- 
der the authority thus given, the members of the 
Committee, acting together or separately, have 
striven to co-operate with the Board of Missions in 
supervising the secular work of the Indian agencies 
under the care of this Church. They have done 
much in prosecuting the civilizing agencies that are 
now preparing Indians to become self-supporting- 
citizens. To many of the Indians, who have pro- 
gressed in civilization, oxen and cows have been 
furnished, and, in one case, a flock of sheep, and the 
Indian women are being taught to make their own 
clothing, and to perform other domestic duties. 

"The year following the appointment of the 
Committee, its chairman visited most of the Indian 
reservations in the care of the Church, and a hun- 
dred copies of his repoi-t are herewith transmitted 
for the information of Deputies, but not for enter- 
ing upon the Journal. 

" The consecration of the Right Rev. William 
Hobart Hare, d.d., as Bishop of the Missionary 
Jurisdiction of Niobrara, has given the greatest re- 
lief to the members of the Committee, and greatly 
encouraged desponding Indians by the appointment 
of a Bishop for them solely. 

"The aid of the Government has again and again 
been invoked in behalf of the Indian, often success- 
fully, whilst at other times the merciful intentions 
of the President have been frustrated by powerful 
combinations of bad men. One member of the 
Committee, being a member of the United States 
Senate, has sought, through its committees, to su- 



187 



pervise and protect the interests of the Indians, but 

so far he has failed in au earnest effort to obtain 
such legislation as Avould give the Indian a standing 
in the Federal Courts, that they might sue and be 
sued, plead and be impleaded. That measure of 
justice is now pending in the Senate, and, it is 
hoped, will be successful. 

"We desire to record our solemn protest against 
all contracts made by Government officials for the 
sale of timber on Indian reservations against the 
express wishes of the Indians in whom the title of 
the reservation is vested, and to express the deter- 
mination of the Committee, as far as practicable, to 
protect them in their legal rights. 

" In conclusion your Committee ask the adoption 
of the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That a Committee on Indian Affairs 
be appointed, and the preamble and resolution passed 
at the last session be re-enacted. " 

There are, sir, many people who are sceptical of 
the civilization of the Indians. A large class of 
them have just been put to a severe test. It is well 
known that very few Christians go through a mili- 
tary campaign without being tainted in some wise. 
By request of the officer in charge of the Depart- 
ment of the Northern Missouri, quite a large band 
of the Santee Sioux were sent to go out as scouts 
with the expedition to the Black Hills. Without 
any suggestion, of his own free movement, General 
Custer sent this letter, which was handed to me yes- 
terday afternoon at the missionary meeting by the 
Clerical Deputy from the District of Niobrara : 

"Headquarters Middle District, ) 
Departivient of Dakota, f 
Port Abraham Lincoln, D. T., ( 
September 10, 1874. J 

" Rev. S. D. Hinman, U. S. Indian Coynmissioner : 
" My Dear Sir — As the services of the Santee 
Scouts are no longer required, they having been em- 
ployed in connection with the Black Hills Expedi- 
tion, and as they are about to set out on their return 
to their reservation, I desire to express to you, as 
their agent, my hearty approval of their conduct 
during the brief period they have been under my 
command. As soldiers I have found them faithful, 
obedient, and trustworthy, always ready to perform 
their duty. It gives me still greater pleasure to tes- 
tify to their deportment as men. I doubt if the 
same number of young men belonging to the white 
race could be collected in any community of the 
same size whose moral bearing would excel, if equal, 
that of the Santee young men who accompanied the 
Black Hills Expedition. They seem to be generally 
free from the prevailing vices usually found among 
young men. As a class, they neither indulge in 
profanity nor strong drink. 

"One pleasant incident among the many which 
characterized my visit to the Black Hills I now re- 
call. It was during one of our resting days in 
camp. I was seated alone in my tent when sud- 
denly as if from the rocks and forests of that beau- 
tiful region I heard the familiar ' Old Hundred ' roll 
forth from a score or more of manly voices. Then 
followed the equally familiar hymn, 'Rock of Ages,' 
and others not less known. Cavalrymen are not 
noted for their hymn-singing qualities, and I stepped 
outside my tent to discover from whom this music 
came. It was from a group of Santee young men, 
and I shall long remember the pleasing effect pro- 
duced by hearing these good old hymns, sung as I 
then heard them, by men, or the sons of men, who 
but a few years a,go roamed over this country in a 
state of barbarous wildness. So much for the labors 
of Christianity and civilization, and to you, and 
through you to the Santees under your charge, 
1 express my gratification that so much has been 



achieved. May the good work go on, is the sincere 
wish of, Yours truly, 

"G. A. CUSTER, 
'■^Brevet Major-General U. S. Ay-my, 
" Commanding District.''^ 

Mr. President, I have nothing to add. This 
resolution should either be adopted now or .go on 
the Calendar. I move its adoption, and that a copy 
of it be sent to the House of Bishops. As they co- 
operated in the appointment of the Committee, 
they have expressed a desire to hear the report of 
the Committee. 

Mr. MACKALL, of Easton. I move to amend 
the resolution so that instead of appointing a new 
committee, the present one be continued. I hope 
the gentleman will accept that amendment. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I cannot accept 
it, because I think you ca,n get better men. It 
should be observed that this Committee has become 
obnoxious to the Indian Ring, and the Chairman 
particularly so, and there has been great doubt ex- 
pressed as to his sanity. (Laughter.) 

Mr. ANDREWS, of Ohio. I hope the gentleman 
will accept the amendment. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. If the Commit- 
tee desire me to accept the amendment, I am willing 
to do so. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Easton 
moves to amend the resolution by providing that 
the former Committee be appointed. 

The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution 
as amended was adopted. 

MESSAGES FROM THE BISHOPS. 

A message (No. 39) was received from the House 
of Bishops, announcing the passage by that House of 
the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Dsputies concurring). 
That Section 1, Canon 6, Title II., be amended to 
read as follows : ' If any Presbyter or Deacon 
shall, without availing himself of the provision of 
Canon 5 of the Title, abandon the Communion of 
this Church, by an open renunciation of the doc- 
trine, discipline, and worship of this Church, or by 
a formal admission into any religious body not in 
communion with the same, or in any other way, it 
shall be the duty of the Standing Committee of the 
Diocese to make certificate of the fact to the Bishop 
of the Diocese, or, if there be no Bishop, to the Bishop 
of an adjacent Diocese, which certificate shall be re- 
corded, and shall be taken and deemed by the Ec- 
clesiastical authority as equivalent to a renuncia- 
tion of the ministry by the minister himself, and 
the said Bishop may then proceed to suspend for six 
months the Presbyter or Deacon so certified as 
abandoning the Communion of this Church. Notice 
shall be given to said minister by the said Bishop re- 
ceiving the certificate, that unless he shall within 
six months make declaration that the facts alleged 
in said certificate are false, he will be deposed from 
the ministry of the Church.' " 

Message No. 40 announced the passage of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"1. Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That [1] of Section 1, of Canon 3, of Title II., be 
amended by adding after the words ' crime or im- 
morality,' these words following : 'and if he be pre- 
sented under [1] of this Section, the Bishop may, 
with the advice and consent of the Standing Com- 
mittee, at once inhibit the minister so presented 
from aU the functions of his ministry, until trial be 
had and a verdict given.' " 

"2. Resolved, That [5] of Section 1, of Canon 2, 
of Title II., be amended by striking out the words 
' on being found guilty, ' and inserting in their stead 
the words ' if he be found guilty.' " 



188 



Message No. 41 announced the passage of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That [1] of Section 17, of Canon 13, of Title I., be 
amended by inserting after the words ' the House of 
Bishops shall ' the words following : ' on the writ- 
ten request of twelve members of the same.' " 

Message No. 42 annoimced the passage of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concm^ring), 
That Clause 2, of Section 2, of Canon 13, of Title 
I., be amended by the substitution in place of the i 
words 'if the House of Bishops consent,' the words 
following : ' If the House of Bishops by a vote of a 
majority of all the Bishops entitled to seats and 
votes in the said House consent.' " 

These messages were referred to the Committee 
on Canons. 

Message No. 43 announced the passage by the 
House of Bishops of the following resolution : 

' ' Resolved, That this House concurs in the amend- 
ment to [4] of Section 8, of Canon 13, Title I., 
communicated in Message No. 28 of the House of 
Deputies." 

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Under the in- 
structions of the Committee on Canons, I desire to 
make a report in reference to the order which was 
reported by them a few days ago, relating to the 
organization of this House. It will be remembered 
that last week, I think, the Committee on Canons 
reported and recommended the adoption by the 
House of the order entitled "Of the Organization 
of the House of Deputies, and prescribing the Duties 
of the Secretary. " Subsequently it was suggested to 
the Committee that a doubt might arise as to 
whether either House by a standing order could bind | 
that House meetmg in the next General Convention. 
In order to remove all doubt and difficulty upon 
that point, the Committee requested that this order 
be recommitted to them. They have now adopted, 
and will report to the House and recommend them 
to adopt, with the concurrence of the House of Bish- 
ops, a Canon providing that all rules and standing 
orders of each House shall be enforced until the or- 
ganization of the next House, and until they be sub- 
sequently altered or amended. The report is a short 
one, and I ask the Secretary to read it. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

" The Committee on Canon, to whom was referred 
a resolution in regard to the organization of this 
House, and who obtained leave to withdraw their j 
report, No. 9, on that subject for amendment, re- j 
spectfully report : That they have reconsidered the i 
same, and herewith submit a copy of the standing 
order as proposed to be amended, and recommend the | 
adoption of the same, and also the following resolu- j 
tions : j 

"1. Resolved, That this order, as amended by the | 
foregoing proposition, be adopted as a standing | 
order of this House, and be printed in the Digest at j 
the end of the Canons. 

"2. Resolved, That this order, so far as applies 
to the election of a Vice-President, be effective from 
this time, and that the House proceed to the election j 
of a Vice-President to-morrow at eleven a.m. | 

"3. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), ' 
That the following clause be added to Section 1 of ' 
Canon 1 of Title III. of the Digest : j 

" '[4.] The rules and orders of each House of the t 
General Convention shall be in force in the ensuing | 
General Convention until the organization thereof, | 
and ujitil they be amended or repealed.' " I 

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. I have here the 
order, which has already been printed in full in The 
Daily Churchman, and of coui'se, if any member 
has not read it or is not sufficiently acquainted with 



its contents, he can now call for the reading of it. I 
do not propose to have it read, unless some member 
of the House desires that it should be read. 

Mr. OTIS, of lUinois. Perhaps it had better be 
read. 

The Secretary read as follows : 
" Order (as proposed to be amended) of the Organi- 
zation of the House of Deputies, and prescribing 
the Duties of the Secretary. (Adopted October 
15, 1841 ; amended October 2, 1844, October 9, 1874, 
and October — , 1874.) 

' ' Section 1. At the time and place appointed for 
the meeting of the General Convention, the Secre- 
tary, or, in his absence, the Assistant Secretary, or, 
in the absence of both, the person appointed as'here- 
inafter provided by the Standing Committee of the 
Diocese in which the General Convention is to meet, 
shall call to order the members present of the House 
of Deputies, and record the names of those whose 
testimonials in due form shall have been presented 
to him, which record shall be prima facie evidence 
that the persons whose names are therein recorded 
are entitled to seats in the House of Deputies. If 
there be a quorum present, by the record, the Secre- 
tary shall so declare, and the House shall proceed to 
organize by the election by ballot of a President 
from the members of the House, and of a Secretary ; 
and a majority of all the votes cast shall be necessary 
to an election. So soon as the President and Secretary 
have been elected the House shall at once proceed to 
the election of a Vice-President, by ballot ; and a 
majority of all the votes cast shall be necessary to 
an election. The Vice-President on being elected 
may take his seat by the President, to aid him in 
the discharge of his duties ; and he shall preside in 
the| absence of the President from the chair. But 
the President shall appoint all committees, unless 
the House shall otherwise order. Before proceeding 
to other business a committee shall be appointed to 
wait upon the House of Bishops, and inform them of 
the organization of the House of Deputies and its 
readiness to proceed to business. 

" The Secretary shall keep full minutes of the pro- 
ceedings of the House ; transcribe them with all re- 
ports into a book provided for that purpose ; preserve 
the Journal and records of the House ; dehver them 
to his successor, and perform such other duties as 
may be directed or assigned to him by the House. 
He may, with the approbation of the House, appoint 
an Assistant Secretary, and the Secretary and As- 
sistant Secretary shall continue in office until the or- 
ganization of the next Convention, and until their 
successors be chosen. If, during the recess of the 
General Convention, a vacancj" should occur in the 
office of Secretary, the duties thereof shall devolve 
upon the Assistant Secretary, if there be one ; if not, 
or if the Assistant Secretary shall die or resign, a 
Secretary shall be appointed by the Standing Com- 
mittee 6i the Diocese in which the next General 
Convention is to meet. 

' ' Sec. 2. In order to a,id the Secretary in pre- 
paring the list specified in the preceding section, it 
shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Convention 
of every Diocese to for vard to him as soon as may 
be practicable a copy of the Journal of the Diocesan 
Convention, together with a certified copy of the 
testimonials of membei-s aforesaid. He shall also 
forward a duplicate copy of such testimonials to the 
Standing Committee of the Diocese in which the 
next General Convention is to meet. 

"Sec. 3. The Secretary of the House of Deputies 
and the Treasurer of the Convention, although not 
returned as Deputies to the Convention, shaU be en- 
titled to seats upon the floor of the House, and, with 
the approval of the President, to speak on the sub- 
jects of their respective offices. " 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. If members of 
the House will turn to the first page of the Jom-nal 



189 



of the last General Convention, they will see under 

what standing order the House has heretofore 
organized. They will observe that in it there is no 
direct provision for the election of a President. I 
ask that the action of the House bo now taken on 
the three resoh;tions reported from the Committee on 
Canons. The first is the adoption of the order. 
Will the Chair put the question on that ? 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the first 
resolution reported. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I wish to pro- 
pose a slight amendment to that. Where it pro- 
vides for the appointment of a Vice-President by 
ballot, I would add after "ballot " the words "but 
if there be but one nomination, the ballot may be 
dispensed with," which may save a great deal of 
trouble. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I will answer the 
gentleman by saying that that came before the 
Committee, and after due deliberation they con- 
cluded that it was better not to have a viva voce 
election under any circumstances, but that the 
sense of the House could always be better obtained 
by having a ballot, and that the little time lost in 
taking the ballot would be justified by the result. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I withdraw the 
amendment. 

The first resolution was adopted. 

Mr. BURGVf IN, of Pittsburgh. The second reso- 
lution is — 

"That this order, so far as it provides for the 
election of a Vice-President, be effective from this 
time, and that the House proceed to the election 
of a Vice-President to-morrow, Tuesday, at eleven 

A.M." 

In regard to that, I am authorized to state, by our 
Presiding Officer, that it meets v/ith his most hearty 
approval, and that he is very desirous of being re- 
lieved from the weighty duties which have been 
imposed upon him, and which will be imposed upon 
him for the rema.inder of this session, by the election 
of a Vice-President, to aid him in their perform- 
ance. 

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. One ques- 
tion. Will that Vice-President be a layman ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Yes, sir, the 
President or Vice-President may either be a lay- 
man. 

The second resolution was adopted. 
Mr. BURGWIN", of Pittsburgh. The third reso- 
lution is : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the following clause be added to Section 1, 
Canon 1, of Title III., of the Digest : 

"[4.] The rules and orders of each House of the 
General Convention shall be in force in the ensuing 
General Convention until the organization thereof, 
and until they be amended or repealed." 

The resolution was agreed to. 

THE CENTENNIAL, CELEBRATION. 

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I ask leave to 
introduce a resolution that I think will give rise to 
no debate whatever. It is in reference to a proper 
observance of the Centenary of American Inde- 
pendence. I uinderstand some action has been or 
will be taken in the House of Bishops. I offer this 
resolution, with the consent of the House, bearing 
on that point : 

"Whereas, By an act of the Congress of the 
United States provision has been made for the due 
celebration of the centennial anniversary of the 
Declaration of Independence, in the year 1876, in 
the city of Philadelphia, where that Declaration 
was originally published to the world, and where it 
is right and proper that all the people of the land 
should, directly or indirectly, take part therein, be- 
cause all share in the blessings and privileges 



which, as its consequence, followed that memorable 

event ; and, 

"Whereas, Amongst those blessings and privi- 
leges, religious liberty is of inexpressible value, and 
has been most fruitful in the opportunity for the de- 
velopment of spiritual life among the American 
people. Therefore, be it 

" Resolved, That the House of Bishops be, and it 
is hereby, respectfully requested to appoint such ser- 
vices and observances for that occasion as may in 
its godly judgment be best adapted to revive aniong 
the people of the Protestant Episcopal Church a 
lively and grateful remembrance of the men whose 
trials, sacrifices, and noble works brought into being 
the United States of America, and secured to the 
Church of God the goodly heritage that it here en- 
joys. 

"Resolved, That the members of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America 
are hereby exhorted, in their several spheres and in 
all becoming ways, to exhibit their sense of the 
personal advantages derived from the blessings of 
civil and religious liberty as enjoyed by them, 
by promoting according to their opportunities 
the success of the centennial celebration of the 
Declaration of Independence, and to give to the 
same in their respective parishes and Dioceses a 
public recognition of the grace and goodness of God 
in securing with the civil the ecclesiastical inde- 
pendence of our land." 

Ml". WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I presume no 
one will object to it in that form. 

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. It ought not to 
lead to discussion. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I want to 
move the indefinite postponement of this resolu- 
tion. That is my motion. I move that the resolu- 
tion, just brought up by the gentleman from Pitts- 
burgh, be indefinitely postponed ; and I would like, 
as a motion for indefinite postponement is capable 
of debate and discussion, to be allowed by this 
House to give my reasons for it. 

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. Does not this 
go on the Calendar ? 

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I hope the Secre- 
tary will read the resolutions again so that the House 
may understand them. 

The PRESIDENT. Any resolution objected to 
must go on the Calendar and come up in its place. 

CONVOCATION OF CANTERBURY. 

The SECRETARY. I wish to present a letter 
which I have received from the Convocation of 
Canterbury. 

" The Vicarage, Alton, Staffordshire, ) 
" September 18, 1874. \ 

"To the Rev. W. S. Perry, d.d.. Secretary to 
THE General Convention : 

" It was ordered by the lower House of the Con- 
vocation of Canterbury, February 15, 1870, that the 
Prolocutor should be authorized to send copies of 
the ' Chronicle of Convocation ' to the General Con- 
vention of the American Church and other synodi- 
cal assemblies at his discretion. 

' ' In accordance with this vote the Venerable 
Prolocutor has commissioned me to forward the 
'Chronicles of Convocation,' containing the whole 
record of the proceedings of the last Convocation, 
to yourself as Secretary, to be by you duly pre- 
sented to the General Convention. 

" I have the greatest pleasure in carrying out his 
request, and I trust that the action of the Lower 
House in this matter may be taken as a token of 
brotherly feeling and Churchman-like sympathy by 
the members of the General Convention. 

" Humbly praying that the guidance of the Incar- 
nate Wisdom may be with your deliberations, and 



190 



prosper them to His glory, I have the honor to be, 
Rev. and dear Sir, 

" Your faithful brother, 

" WILLIAM FRASER, 

"Proc. Cler. Dioc. Lichfield." 
The several volumes of the Chronicle not having 
reached me by mail, I take the liberty of showing 
that they are, a copy having been forwarded from 
a brother clergymen for that purpose. 
I have also the following communication: 

"Society for the Propagation of 
" THE Gospel m Foreign Parts, 
" 20 Duke Street, Westminster, s.w., 
"9 June, 1874. 
"My dear Sir: I am desired by the Standing 
Committee to offer, through you, to the General 
Convention of the American Church our most cor- 
dial thanks for three volumes of Historical Collec- 
tions, relating to Virginia, Pennsylvania, and 
Massachusetts, which have arrived with an inscrip- 
tion informing us that they are the gift of the Gene 
ral Convention. 

"The intrinsic value of the documents to all 
who find pleasure and profit in watching the early 
trials and growth, under God's blessing, of a 
branch of the Church of Christ is very great indeed. 
Future generations will have reason to be grate- 
ful to those who have preserved and handed 
down so instructive a record ; and the work of your 
printers is admirable for its accuracy and beauty. 
We in England have a special reason for satisfaction 
in that we are freed from much of the anxiety with 
which many of these papers were regarded, so long 
as they remained in manuscript ordy, and in our 
custody. 

' ' I tnist that you may be enabled to complete your 
useful but extensive task in editing the remaining 
volumes. 

"I am, dear sir, yours very faithfully, 

"W. T. BULLOCK. 
"Rev. Dr. W. S. Perry, ) 
"Sec. of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, >■ 
" Geneva, New York, U. S." ) 

THE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION. 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I rise to a 
point of order. I do not Imow whether it is too 
late to make it ; if it is not, I rise to this point of 
order : that the resolutions introduced by the Dep- 
uty from Pittsburg (Rev. Mr. Getz) camiot be en- 
tered upon the Calendar, being new matter, which 
is excluded bv an order of this House. 

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I think the con- 
sent of the House was asked to the introduction of 
the resolutions, and consent was given. 

The PRESIDENT. I did not hear any consent. 

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I stated what 
the proposition was, and asked consent to oif er it. 
I stated the substance of the paper before I offered 
it, and consent was given from the fact that there 
was no opposition to the introduction of the resolu- 
tions. I did not hear a single voice in opposition to 
the introduction of the resolutions. 

Mr. AT WATER, of Minnesota. I think there 
would have been large opposition had the contents 
been made known. ! 

The PRESIDENT. So do I. I should have op- | 
posed it myself for one. \ 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. What dispo- 
sition has been made of my point of order ? | 

The PRESIDENT. I have not made any as yet. i 

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. If there is any 
doubt about the reception of the resolutions, I move ■ i 
a reconsideration of the question. 

Rev. Mr, GETZ, of Pittsburgh. Allow me to 
suggest that that is entirely out of order. The 
measure has already been entered on the Calendar by 



order of the Chair, as I understand. I do not think 

it is possible for the House to go back. 

The PRESIDENT. It was a misapprehension 
on the part of the Chair. I had forgotten that it 
was too late to introduce new matter. 
! ^ Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. Not only so; 
I but this resolution asks the concurrence of the House 
of Bishops. It is certainly new matter, and cannot 
be entered upon the Calendar of the House now. 

The PRESIDENT. I think on that state of facts 
it cannot be mtroduced without a vote of two-thirds 
of the members present. There was no vote taken 
on it at all, and of course all that proceeded without 
that vote is null and void. 

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I hope, then, that 
a vote may be taken. I am very well satisfied that 
two-thirds of the House or more will agree to the 
introduction of the resolutions. I can see no possi- 
ble objection to their introduction. 

The PRESIDENT. That would itself be a mo- 
tion which would either have to be debated or lie 
over. The motion must lie over until to- morrow. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Is it not 
necessary that we should take that vote whether it 
will be entertained at all ? The vote should be ta- 
ken at the time it is to be introduced as to whether 
it can be entertained at all. 

The PRESIDENT. That wiU lead to the necessity 
of having a debate on the resolution, contrary to 
the order which says that any resolution which is 
objected to must he over until the next day. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. My pouat 
is whether it is in order to introduce a resolution at 
all, whether it is before the House to lie over, unless 
it is received by the House. Under that rule of 
order, we must, by a two-thii'ds vote, consent to ad- 
mit the motion, or else it cannot be entered on the 
journal at all. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Unless there 
is a motion to suspend the rule to introduce a reso- 
lution, it is entirely irregular. 

The PRESIDENT. That is true. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I caU for the order 
of the day. 

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I understand the 
Chair has decided that the matter of my resolutions 
shall he over until to-morrow. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has so decided. 

GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. At the 
request of Rev. Dr. Shelton, Chainnan of the Com- 
mittee on the General Theological Seminary, I 
present and read this report : 

"The Committee on the General Theological 
Seminary, to whom was referred the Board of 
Trustees for the past three years, respectfully re- 
port : That having carefully examined the same they 
are gratified to find the institution in an unusually 
prosperous condition. The number of students in 1873 
was 78; in 1873, 70 ; in 1874, 73. The buildings and 
grounds were never in a better condition than at 
present. Gas has been introduced into all the rooms 
in both buildings. Two stories of thf^ west wing of 
the west building have been converted into a spa- 
cious, well-lighted, and nearly fire-proof depart- 
ment for the reception of the Seminary's large and 
valuable collection of books, the third story being 
reserved exclusively for pamphlets and paper?. 
A new chapel, arranged after the models 
of the chapels in the colleges of the English 
universities, has also been fitted up in 
the east building. These much-needed improve- 
ments have cost $9,000, of which amount over 
$5,000 were contributed by trustees, and other 
friends of the institution, in response to an appeal 
made by the acting Dean, the Rev. Prof.' Seymour. 
The finances of the institution seem to be slowly 



191 



but steadily improving ; but the Committee are 
sorry to report that the professors, in the discharge 
of their arduous aud important duties, are ser\ing 
the Church on salaries utterly insufficient for their 
proper support. The trustees, in their triennial re- 
port, trulj" say : 

"One thing is earnestly to be desired, and this 
is in the power of the members of the (Church to 
supply, namely; adequate jDro vision for the support 
of the professors of the institution. 

" Your Committee call attention to this matter 
in the hope that a large number of the Dioceses may 
be led to make an annual contribution through their 
several rectors to the funds of this great theological 
school of the Church, which has already sent forth 
eight hundred well-trained men into the ranks of the 
sacred ministry. 

"The Committee further report that they have 
prepared the accompanying list of Clerical and Lay 
Trustees, which after being passed upon by tliis 
House is to be sent to the House of Bishops for its 
approval. This list has been compiled from the list 
prefixed to the proceedings of the Board of Trustees, 
from Convention journals, and from Canonical cer- 
tificates received from the following twenty-nine 
Dioceses : Alabama, Albany, California, Central 
New York, Central Peimsylvauia, Connecticut, 
G-eorgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Long Island, Louisi- 
ana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minneso- 
ta, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jer- 
sey, New York, North CaroKna, Pennsylvania, 
Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, South Carohua, Tennes- 
see. Texas, Western New York, and Wisconsin. 

"The Committee report the following resolution 
and recommend its adoption : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurriug). That 
the Trustees named in the accompanying list be con- 
fii-med as members of the Board of the General The- 
ological Seminary for the next three years." 

With the permission of the House, Mr. President, 
I move the adoption of the resolution in order that 
this Hst may go up at once to the House of Bishops. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I should Kke to 
know whether the Committee have any report of the 
number of times the Trustees have attended, or 
whether they can inform the House how many of 
these Trustees have regularly attended, and how 
many have not. I think we should then vote intel- 
ligently. We have heard quite a number of 
complaints about the Theological Seminary, and 
I hold that our agents, the Trustees to whom we 
confided it, are the parties in fault, if there 
be any fault — ^they who have the appoint- 
ment of the professors and the oversight of the 
whole institution. Surely, if there is any censure, it 
rests upon them. I should be very glad for one to 
know whether the Committee has ascertained how 
many of these trustees have attended regularly, and 
how many have not, or whether they have just 
taken the names of those who are on the list which 
will be handed down from generation to generation 
without their appearing. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. If any 
information be desired, I will simply say that it is 
not possible for the Committee of this House to go 
into that matter. Under one of our Canons, each 
Diocesan Convention sends a certified hst, giving 
the names which it has nominated to this Conven- 
tion under the Constitution of the Seminary. Under 
the Constitution of the Seminary, each Diocese has 
a right to nominate its quota of Trustees. We can- 
not go beyond the certificates. The Dioceses exer- 
cise the constitutional right of selecting. I would 
also say that it is impossible for me or any member 
of the Committee to answer the question a,s to the 
number of times the Trustees thus nominated have 
attended. It cannot be ascertained without going 
through all the published proceedings of the Board. 



Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Then I under- 
stand that the responsibility is upon us. The ap- 
pointing power is upon us, but virtually we do 
nothing but pass upon the names they send to us. 
If that is the desire of the House, I have nothing 
to say. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. As a member 
of this Committee, I would answer the question of 
my friend from Pennsylvania, that neither this 
Convention nor the Committee has anything to do 
with regard to the qualifications of those who are 
nominated as members of the Board of 
Trustees. They are nominated by the 
Dioceses ; and if my friend, who I am 
sure is very active in Pennsylvania, in 
its Convention, will ascertain whether those nomin- 
ated from his Diocese are proper persons, and will 
perform his duty in that respect, and others also 
will do their duty under his instractions in the 
various Conventions, things will go on well. But 
neither this General Convention nor this Commit- 
tee, acting under its instructions, have any right to 
go outside the testimonials sent from the various 
Dioceses. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Now I understand 
that it is a mere formal act of ours to see whether the 
certificates be right. Though the responsibihty rests 
on us, we merely take up the names that are sent up 
and never reject any. If that is the understanding, 
we shall have to look elsewhere for the responsibil- 
ity. Then the General Convention has no responsi- 
bility at all. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
may have misunderstood the report and the resolu- 
tion, as read by the Rev. Deputy from New Jersey; 
but I imderstood him to say that this list was made 
up in two several manners: that from a certain 
number of Dioceses they had received certificates, 
and from other Dioceses they had consulted Con- 
vention reports. Did I rightly understand him ? 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. Yes, 
sir, the journals of the last Convention. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
read Canon 4, which says : 

" It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Con- 
vention of every Diocese to forward to the House 
of Clerical and Lay Deputies, at eveiy General 
Convention, a certificate of the nomination by the 
Diocese of a trustee or trustees for the General 
Theological Seminary ; and without such certifi- 
cate the nomination shall not be confirmed." 

If, therefore, some of these nominations are with- 
out the certificate, they ought to be excluded from 
om' action by the Canon on that subject. I move, 
therefore, the recommitment of this report to the 
Committee. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the mo- 
tion to recommit. 
The motion was agreed to. 

NIGHT SESSIONS. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North CaroKna. I think 
it stands on our minutes that we shall have night 
sessions this week ; and although we changed the 
hours of meeting on Saturday, we did not formally 
repeal the order as to night sessions. I move its re- 
peal. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The Calendar is now in order. 

PLACE OF NEXT MEETING. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The House of Bish- 
ops are exceedingly anxious that a committee be 
appointed to determine the place for the meeting of 
the next Convention. I wish to call up that resolu- 
tion from the Calendar. It is simply a resolution 
calUng for the appointment of a Committee to con- 
fer. It is business No. 21 on the Calendar, 



19^ 



The resolution was taken from the Calendar, as 
follows : 

"Resolved, That a committee, composed of three 
clergymen and three laymen, be appointed to confer 
with the House of Bishops, and suggest to this 
House an appropriate place or places for holding 
the next session of the General Convention." 

The SECRETARY. I suggest a change in the 
form. The House of Bishops took exception to the 
last message I took up to them. It should be, " the 
House of Bishops concurring, That a committee," 
etc. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I will so alter the 
resolution. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be so 
modified. 

The resolution, as modified, was agreed to. 

TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. When we adjourned 
on Saturday the motion before the House was to 
lay the substitute of the gentleman from Easton 
(Rev. Dr. Stearns) on the table, and a vote, by Dio- 
ceses or orders, was called for. Now, I beg leave to 
suggest to the House and to the Clerical Deputy from 
Delaware who made the motion to lay on the table, 
that the vote be taken now directly on the substitute, 
with the understanding that there shall be no de- 
bate. I would suggest, therefore, that the Deputy 
from Delaware ask leave to withdraw his motion to 
lay on the ta.ble, with the understanding that in- 
stead thereof a direct vote shall be taken on the pro- 
position of the gentleman from Easton by Dioceses 
and orders. I think it will be more expeditious. In 
case the motion to lay on the table should be 
lost, we should be liable to debate on the original 
proposition. 1 hope leave will be given to with- 
draw the motion to lay on the table, and ask the 
House to vote at once on the substitute of the gen- 
tleman from Easton. 

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. If the house 
will allow me consent, I will state the reasons why 
I made the motion and why I propose now to with- 
draw it. I will say what I have to say in two min- 
utes. 

The PRESIDENT. Is the motion to lay on the 
table withdrawn ? 

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. I am going to 
withdraw it, but I ask the courtesy of the House to 
state why I made the motion and why I withdraw 
it. If they object I will say nothing. [" Go on."j 

I made the motion, in the first place, to stop a long, 
tedious, and unprofitable discussion at tliis late 
hour of our session, when every moment is 
precious and immensely valuable. I made 
the motion because I thought this House 
would never give up its power and au- 
thority in reference to the confirmation or anti- 
confirmation of any Bishop whose name might be 
sent up here for action. I made the motion also 
because the measure looked hke a reflection on the 
action of the House in reference to a matter which 
has been before them in secret session. It seemed 
to be a motion to prevent any Convention acting in 
a similar manner in the future ; and I felt 
that this Convention ought never, under 
any circumstances, to yield their power 
and authority in reference to the confirmation of 
any Bishop whose name might come before it ; for 
I look upon their action as necessary to preserve the 
dignity and purity and the honor of this Church. 

Now, sir, I withdraw the motion to lay on the 
table; and I do it cheerfully, provided the House 
will come to a direct vote on the question, and thus 
settle a long and tedious and unprofitable discus- 
sion. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. If the motion is 
withdrawn, I have just one word to say. 



Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. I withdraw the 
motion provided the House will come to a direct 
vote. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I will only say a 
woi-d in response to what the gentleman has said. The 
gentleman said that he made the motion because the 
proposition seemed to be introduced as a reflection on 
the action of the Convention. I wish simply to say 
that this motion of mine was introduced on the fourth 
day of. the session, and was made the order of the 
day for last Friday week, but was necessarily post- 
poned by the secret session. It could, therefore, 
have no reference whatever to the action of the 
House on a certain question. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the sub- 
stitute for the report of the Committee on Canons, 
offered by the gentleman from Easton [Rev. Dr. 
STEARNS]. Do you wish to hear the substitute 
and the report read ? [" Yes."] 

The Secretary read the report and the substitute 
of the Rev. Dr. Stearns. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I trust the matter 
will not be voted upon until the resolution of the 
Deputy from Pennsj^lvania [Mr. Welsh] has been 
acted on, by which all the Standing Committees 
shall be composed of clergymen and laymen in 
equal parts ; otherwise we give away a principle 
which the Constitution contains. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. That is a sub- 
ject which has nothing to do with this whatever. 
That affects present action of the Standing Com- 
mittees as much as future action. It has nothing to 
do with the ^articular amendment I have offered. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the substi- 
tute proposed by the E.ev. Deputy from Easton. I 
understand that the question has been ordered to be 
taken by Dioceses and Orders. 

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. That call was 
withdrawn. 

The PRESIDENT. I understood the agreement 
was that the main question w^as to be taken by Dio- 
ceses and orders, instead of the question to lay 
on the table. 

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. The gentleman 
from Easton asked that the vote on my motion be 
taken by orders. I withdrew my motion, and that 
call falls. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. This is an im- 
portant measure, and should not be too hastily 
passed on. What does it amount to ? Who first 
confirmed the Bishop after a Diocese had elected 
him ? The General Convention first did it ; and 
how came the Standing Committees in any way to 
be implicated in the necessity to act ? It was 
solely for the purpose of preventing the 
inconvenience of Dioceses being without Bi- 
shops during the greater part of the thi'ee years. 
The General Convention sits so as to allow action 
during at least one-sixth of the time, and I hold 
that it is wise that it should do so. It trenches not 
the least on the Dioceses. If a Diocese wishes a 
Bishop at any time before the six months, all it has 
to do is to elect him, and then the Standing Com- 
mittees act. But now, forsooth, because the Con- 
vention has recently acted on such an election, and 
has been delayed for several days, gentlemen 
wish to throw the whole matter on the Standing 
Committees. Let me say to the laity that there are 
Standing Committees in this Church which have not 
a layman on them. Gentlemen of the laity, are you 
going to be deprived of yoiu- right, and throw this 
matter on such Standing Committees ? There 
may be but one or two of them ; but 
the principle is the same. I hold that 
it is wise to act now upon the rule obsta principiis. 
Let us stick to what we have until at least we pro- 
vide that our Standing Committees shall be compos- 
ed of an equal number of clerics and laics. Until 



193 



then there is nothing like equality among us. There 
ought to be. and the' Constitution contemplates that 
there should be. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I renew the call for 
a vote bv Dioceses and orders. 

The PRESIDENT. Does the Diocese of Long 
Island call for it i' 

Mr. KINCt, of Long Island. We all agree in the 
Diocese of Long Island on that point. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentuckj-. I should be 
glad to hear the question distinctly stated by the 
Chair as it will be presented for the vote of the 
House. 

The PRESIDENT. Dr. Perry wUl state it so 
that it can be more certainly heard. 

The SECRETARY. The Rev. Dr. Stearns has 
proposed an amendment to the resolution reported 
by the Committee on Canons in their Report No. 7. 
That amendment strikes out Sections 2 and 3, of 
Canon 13, of Title I., and removes the provision 
whereby the confirmation of a ±5ishop, elected with- 
in six months of the time of the meeting of a G-en- 
eral Convention, comes before that General Conven- 
tion. It remands the whole matter to the Standing 
Committees in all cases whatsoever. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I trust, sir, that 
this amendment will not prevail, and I shall very 
briefly give the reasons that to my mind are con- 
clusive as to that point. I consider this — 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. Is this ques- 
tion debatable after the vote by Dioceses has been 
called for ? 

The PRESIDENT. I think so. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. There was an 
understanding that it should not be debated. 

The PRESIDENT. I cannot recognize a mere 
understanding. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I consider the ado-p- 
tion of this proposition as parting with a principle 
wMch ought, by no means, be sacrificed. The 
provision giving the power to the Bishop and Stand- 
ing Committee to act dm-ing the recess of the 
Convention was a matter of convenience. It 
has been stated and proved upon this floor that 
a portion of these standing committees are not con- 
stitutionally organized. They are totally at vari- 
ance with tlie Constitution of the Church, and that 
point alone, in my opinion, is conclusive that we 
should still retain the principle, even if we practi- 
cally have not the power to apply it. Although 
the pra.ctical exercise of our power may be 
evaded by a Diocese not electing a Bishop within 
six months of the meeting of the General 
Convention, I would not give up the principle ; and 
especially I would not give it up until those Dioceses 
who have not conformed to the General Constitu- 
tion of the Church have organized themselves upon 
a proper platform. To speak after a civil manner, 
they have not a republican form of Government, for 
the lay element in some of them is not introduced. 

Mr. BATTLE, of North CaroHna. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I was perfectly willing that the vote should 
have been taken without any discussion ; but as 
the debate has recommenced, 1 beg leave to speak 
for five minutes. Everything I have to say in 
favor of the amendment can be said in that time. 

As a member of the Committee on Canons, I 
voted aganst the report which has been submitted 
to the House. All the objections that have 
been urged against this measure apply to 
five-sixths of the Bishops. If it is a good 
reason, it ought to have prevailed heretofore 
in all cases. I have all the time been in favor of 
that great principle that equality is equity. K you 
apply it to five Bishops, why not apply it to the 
sixth ? This Convention holds its meeting but once 
every three years ; and in view of the numbers of 
this House, if there should be two or three Bishops 



' elected within six months of its meeting, and we have 
a debate of eight days in each case, vve should have 
' to give up all other busine&s. If we encounter the 
difiiculty' which we have had at this session in re- 
gard to" the nomination of the Bishop-elect of Illi- 
nois, and if we have three or four cases of that kind 
coming before us, we should have to abandon all 
our rights as legislators and confine ourselves to 
the confirmation of Bishops-elect, But my great 
reason is that all that can be said against the prac- 
tice which is proposed applies now to five cases out 
of six ; and equality is equity. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I do not 
desu-e to debate the subject; but supposing that we 
are going to take the vote, I wish to state that I 
\ hope every member of the House understands the 
■ issue as it will be presented now. The amendment, 
as I understand it, and as I beheve the case is, pro- 
poses to change the present order, and give 
up the election in the six months that are 
retamed for this House, so that aU who vote " aye " 
when the call is made vote in favor of the change, 
: while all who vote "nay "vote to leave things as 

they now are. 
! The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop- 
\ tion of the substitute for the report of the Com- 
: mittee on Canons, proposed by the gentleman from 
! Easton. 

I The Secretary proceeded to call the roll, with 

the following result : 
Clerical, Vote.— ^t/e— Albany, Arkansas, Cali- 
j fomia, Central New York, Easton, Maine, Michi- 
! gan, Mississippi, New Jersey, South Carolina. Nay 
[ — Central Pennsylvania, Connecticut. Delaware, 

Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Long 
; Island, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minne- 
' sota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Rhode Island, Texas, 
! Vermont, Virginia, "Western New York, Wisconsm. 
i Divided — Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, New York, 
j North Carolina, Tennessee. 

' Mr. KING, of Long Island. I think it is not ne- 
cessary to consume the time of the House by taking 

: the vote of the laity. The proposition is so entirely 
defeated that I do"^ not see the necessity of going 
further. 

The PRESHDENT. I do not see how that can be 
i done. 

j Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I desire infor- 
mation. I ask whether this vote is only to let it go 
to the Committee on Canons that they may con- 
sider it ^ 

! The PRESIDENT. No ; it is to change the 
Canons of the Church in regard to the confirmation 
of a Bishop-elect, 
i Mr. WELSH, of Pennsj-lvania. A final act. 
I Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. This is out of 
order. Go on with the call. 

The Secretary continued the caUing of the roU of 
the laity, with the following result : 
Lay Vote. — Aye — Alabama, Albany, Easton, 
! Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nev/ 
York, North Carolina. Nay — California, Central 
I New York, Central Pennsylvania, Connecticut, 
j Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Ken- 
j tucky. Long Island, Louisiana, Michigan, Minne- 
I sota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Rhode Is- 
land, South Carolina, Virginia, Western New York, 
Wisconsin. Divided — Tennessee, 
i Result.— CZen'ca? Vote — 41 Dioceses represented : 
i ayes 10, nays 25, divided 6. Lay Vote—SQ Dioceses 
represented : ayes 9, nays 26, divided 1. 
So the amendment was rejected, 
j The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the 
^ resolution reported by the Committee to be dis- 
; charged from the further consideration of the sub- 
: ject. 



194 



Mr. BARTHOLOW, of Kansas. I offer the 
following substitute for the report of the Commit- 
tee on Canons : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concarring), 
That in case of the election of a Bishop by any Dio- 
cese six months prior to the sitting of the General 
Convention of this Church, its standing Committee 
shall transmit to the Bishop and Standing Committee 
of each Diocese a copy of all proceedings bearing 
on such election, together with the evidence 
of their approbation of the testimonials and 
certificates ; and testimonials, as required by 
Canon 13, be submitted to the General Convention, 
find it shall be the duty of the Bishop or Standing 
Committee, as aforesaid, to cause the precedmg tes- 
timonials, etc., to be transmitted, as provided here- 
in, before the several Diocesan Conventions next 
succeeding, for their approval." 

I desire merely to say that, as a member once of a 
CDnvention that elected a Bishop, I saw the necessi- 
ty of Imowing the several candidates who were 
brought before the Convention. I did not know that 
any of the candidates were known to other mem- 
bers ; they were not to myself, I was in great diffi- 
culty as to maldng up my mind whom to vote for, 
because I had no one to consult with. Finally, i 
found that there was one person in the Convention 
who knew probably all the candidates who were 
proposed. I approached him on the subject. He 
vvas unwilling to give an opinion. I named 
over the several candidates, one or two of 
whom I Imew something of by reputation. He 
thought they would not accept if elected. I then 
named to him another whom he seemed to know, 
and he thought he would accept. 1 tried to get his 
views of this candidate. He declined to give his 
opinions ; but I gathered from the conversation which 
passed that he had every confidence in the person. 
He was finally elected. As a member of that Con- 
vention, probably a word from me would have 
a, voided all difficulty. He is now with us; he is en- 
tirely acceptable; but it has occurred to me, sup- 
pose something had transpired which was 
unknown to the person of whom I inquir- 
ed. I liiink it is important that, in case of the 
election of a Bishop hereafter, we have an oppor- 
tunity to discuss his qualifications ; and if the Dio- 
cesan Conventions have six months to think of the 
matter, in my judgment, it will be better. Hence 
I have offered this proposition. 

The amendment was rejected. ^ 

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the 
resolution discharging the Committee on Canons. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

PLACE OF MEETING. 

The PRESIDENT appointed as the Committee of 
Conference on the part of the House of Deputies, in 
regard to the place of meeting of the next General 
Convention, Rev. Dr. Davies, of Pennsylvana ; Rev. 
Dr. Lambert, of Massachusetts ; Rev." Dr. Cady, of 
New York ; Mr. Welsh, of Pennsylvania ; Mr. 
Mason, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Brune, of Mary- 
land. 

SUPPLEMENTARY DEPUTY. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the 
Committee on Elections, reported that due evidence 
had been presented of the appointment of Rev. J. 
H. Knowles as Supplementary Deputy from the 
Diocese of Illinois in place of Rev. Cimton Locke, 
D.D., who has withdrawn from the House by leave. 

TRANSLATION OF BISHOPS. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I have a long- 
report from the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution, and I will simply state its contents 
that it may go from us to the Com-mittee on Canons. 



! We are asked if it is necessary to change the Consti- 
I tution m order to translate a Bishop from one Dio- 
cese to another. The answer of a majority 
i of the Committee is that it is not necessary; that the 
: word ' ' proper " signifies simply that one Bishop shall 
; not interfere with the Diocese of another, but shall 
be kept to his own one Diocese, for which he is con- 
. secrated. A minority of the Committee have dif- 
i fered, and have kindly signed simply the fact 
I of that difference, and not the adoption of an 
j argument. The resolution appended to the report is : 
I "Resolved, That the Committee on Constitution- 
j al Amendments be discharged. " 

The report then goes to the Committee on Canons, 
j The PRESIDENT. The motion is that the Com- 
j mittee on Constitutional Amendments be dis- 
charged. 
The motion was agreed to. 
I Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Now 
I I move that the resolutions, which have been con- 
I sidered by the Committee on Amendments to the 
j Qonstitution, on that subject be referred to the Com- 
j mittee on Canons. 
I The motion was agreed to. 

j THE PRESIDING BISHOP. 

! Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I wish to 
I take from the Calendar the resolution offered on 
j Saturday for the rehef of the Presiding Bishop, 

that it may be put on its passage, inasmuch as it 
I calls for the appointment of a joint committee with 
I the House of Bishops ; and if it is not done now it 
I may not be reached. I move that it be taken up. 
I The motion was agreed to ; and the House pro- 
! ceeded to consider the following resolution : 
i "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 

That in view of the advanced age and increasing in- 
I firmities of the present Presiding Bishop and the 
: pressure of duties devolving upon him, a joint com- 
'■ mittee of three Bishops, three Presbyters, and three 
i laymen, be appointed to consider and I'eporb to this 
I body some plan by which adequate rehef can be ac- 
I corded him under the circumstances." 
I The resolution was adopted, and Rev. Dr. Schenck. 
I of Long Island, Rev. Dr. Tucker, of Albany, Rev. 
i Mr. Leverett, of Central Pennsylvania, Mr. Garth- 
; waite, of New Jersey, Mr. Whittle, of Georgia, and 

Mr. Blair, of Maryland, were appointed the Com- 
i mittee. 

' Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President— 
I Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Before Dr. Ful- 
i ton begins his remarks, I move that the rule limiting 
: debate to thirty minutes be suspended so far as he 
is concerned, masmuch as he represents the Com- 
mittee on Canons in introducing this Canon to the 
^ House. 

The motion was agreed to. 

I CANON ON RITUAL. 

I The House proceeded to consider the Canon re- 
ported from the Committee on Canons relative to 
i Ritual. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President 
and gentlemen of the Convention, for years past 
! there has been over the length and breadth of the 
i United States a great excitement of public opinion 
touching the ecclesiastical matters which pertain to 
our own household of the faith. It has been no slight 
e^ddence of the power which tliis Church exercises 
upon all sorts and conditions of men, 
that while other bodies might divide, might 
split into fragments and go hither and thither 
! with no force at all except what seemed to be cen- 
i trifugal, our Church has been before the public con- 
! stantly a topic of discussion ; constantly before the 
! public as representing this fact, that whatever cen- 
trifugal influences it may include, the centripetal is 
' stronger than all. And yet, sir, the matters in ques- 



195 



t.'on have not fceen unimportant m itte: s There has 
been a deep-seated feeling of uneasiness in the Church 
itself; so that the eyes of the whole Church have 
been fastened upon this present assembly which 
was appioaching to see what we should do con- 
ceniing the question of Ritual, about which we 
were expected judicially to pronounce. Shortly 
after the meeting of the Convention, before the real 
business began, the evidence of anxiety was very 
manifest in the deluge of petitions and other docu- 
ments which was poured in upon us ; documents of 
vast variety ; documents of vast particularity in 
definition ; documents, however, which indicated 
great study, and certainly documents which indi- 
cated much anxiety ; and yet it did seem as if all 
this dread and anxiety and excitement were some- 
what disproportioned to the facts of the case. 

When we looked over the whole length and 
breadth of the country, and saw that the actual 
source of all this ti'ouble lay in less than a dozen 
chui'ches, called Ritualistic ; when wo reflected 
that, with the exception of perhaps two of these, the 
rest were insignificant ; when we reflected, more- 
over, that the influence of these churches did not 
seem to be on the increase, but on the wane ; 
when we reflected that it was almost im- 
possible for some of them to maintain their present 
standing and to continue their present services, I 
must say that many men felt that the cause of alarm 
had been exaggerated by the intense interest of 
the public in our affairs, and that we were not 
nearly so near destruction or heresy or schism as 
many men had supposed. And so, on the part of 
many of us, there was at first a great indisposition 
to enter into any course of legislation upon 
this subject. It was also evident to the minds of many 
of us that there was a growing variety of services 
throughout the land ; that the sesthetic faculty had 
been brought as never before into our worship of Al- 
mighty God ; that the Churches of Christ throughout 
this country had been seeking to allure men 
to the worship and to the love of Christ ; and it 
was felt by many of us that it would be a 
dangerous thing and a wrong thing to crush 
down these aesthetic tendencies used for so high, so 
holy, and so noble a purpose. Manifestly through- 
out the congregations of our Church there has been 
a large increase of devotion shown by those signifi- 
cant contributions of the people, the offerings at the 
altar ; and most certainly no man can have looked 
into our churches with his eyes open, without seeing 
that within the last few years there Is In the 
attitude, in the whole tone. In the whole 
expression of the worshipping multitude, a grand, a 
glorious increase of outward and apparent devotion 
to our Master. And, sir, I beg to say on the part of 
the Committee on Canons that in regard to these 
things there was no disposition to crush, not the 
slightest disposition to repress. Matters of mere 
taste were not the cause of the excitement which 
has prevailed in the Church, and of the curiosity 
which has prevailed beyond it. 

But it was said that practices which had been 
introduced had a doctrinal purport, and so far from 
that being denied on the part of those who had car- 
ried on certain Ritual practices, it has been openly 
proclaimed, and indeed has been made their only ex- 
cuse for disturbing the peace and quiet of the Church 
by the introduction of such practices. "Why," 
they said, "It would not be worth the trouble to ex- 
pose ourselves to all this obloquy If the thing had 
not a doctrinal significance. It has a doctrinal sig- 
nificance, and we Intend to use it for a doctrinal 
purpose." This is the real cause why the mind of 
the Church has been disturbed, why this Council of 
the Church has been petitioned, and why your Com- 
mittee is constrained to present this Canon, 
while in that Committee there are several 



members at least, if not a majority, who 
would prefer not to present to you any ca- 
non at all. I say it is because of the doctrinal sig- 
nificance of this thing that we are compelled to 
come before you and bring in a Canon with all tbe 
reluctance that you could wish. 

And there is something touching the doctrinal 
character of Ritualistic observances that toucho:> 
the very roots of our manhood. It is this, that 
while no man will object to a priest of this Chm-cb, 
within the lawful limits of doctrinal freedom, 
preaching what he believes to be the tniths of God, 
yet we do want him to preach it in words ; we want 
him to stand upon his feet, as has been nobly done 
to the knowledge of this body, and to say what he 
believes ; not to make women and children believe 
it without their ever hearing anything said. This 
Is the thing that really, I think, has troubled our 
Church-people most, that their doctrine has been 
in danger of being invaded by indirection, and thar, 
too, by men who would shrink from open expres- 
sion of what they were thus seeking to teach. 

Mr. President, it is certainly true that innovations 
upon Ritual do have such effect as to change tbe 
doctrines of the Church. The lesson of antiquity 
teaches this. It has been by posture, it has been hj 
Ritual, not only that doctrines have been formed in 
the minds of Christian people, but also, thank God, by 
this same agency, that doctrines have beenpresei-ved. 
Look at the ancient liturgies, as they come down to 
us ! To-day, how invaluable they are as teaching 
what was the settled doctrine, as well as the settled 
worship of the ancient Churches. And yet these 
liturgies grew up nattirally from belief of that 
doctrine and has been the means of preserving that 
worship. So, among ourselves, a people so ready to 
change and adopt new things, so glad to get rid of old 
things felt to be burdensome, a people so confessedly 
restless, there has seemed to be a peculiar danger 
of our doctrines becoming imsettled by means of 
practices that in themselves perhaps are not ob- 
jectionable. 

So then In the Committee on Canons, as In this 
Convention, the feeling that has been all-per- 
vading has been that this Convention ought, as 
far as possible, to protect the doctrine of the Chm'ch 
from indirect invasion. After the array of petitions 
which came in one morning, a startling question 
was presented to the House by my reverend and 
dear friencL the Clerical Deputy from Louisiana 
[Rev. Mr. Harris]. He raised the point : The law 
of this Church is threefold ; fii'st. Its organic law, 
contained in the Constitution ; secondly, its Ritual 
and Liturgical law, as contained In the Book of 
Common Prayer, and particularly in the Rubrics 
of that Book ; and thirdly, the Canon law, relating 
to such matters of detail as cannot be regarded as 
belonging to the other two ; and he put this signifi- 
cant question. Whether we have a right to change 
the Ritual law of the Church, otherwise than as 
the Church declares we shall do it ? 

I am frank to confess that the Committee on 
Canons felt themselves exceedingly startled by this 
question. There were many members of that Commit- 
tee who were decided in saying that no such thing, 
with their consent, could or should be done ; that they 
vv^ould not Invade the Book of Common Prayer ; 
that they would not change the Rubrics by way c f 
Canon ; that the action coming from that" Commit- 
tee on Cannons should be straightforward, direct, 
and should not touch the Ritual law of the Chui-ch 
as laid down in the Book of Common Prayer, 
otherwise than as the Constitution of the Church 
provided. 

I ought to state that the Committee on Canons 
reached some of Its conclusions not by any direct 
discussion of the merits, but that gradualh^, a.s we 
conversed day after day and night after night, we 



196 



came to certain conclusions as to which we were 
substantiallj'- agreed ; and I think, Mr. President, 
that as the youngest member of this Committee, now 
for the first time acting upon that Committee by 
your appointment, I have a freedom to say what 
no other n:!ember of the Committee could say, 
an 1 that is that I never in my life have 
se3n £.U3h ingenuousness ; I never in my 
life have seen such candor ; I never in my life have 
seen such readiness to listen, and yet at the same 
time we had thirteen tolerably hai d l)eads to be reach- 
ed, and thirteen tolerably forcible tongues to speak 
for wha": they individually bslieved. We sat five 
or six times before we could put one word to paper. 
We sat loiiger than that before v/e put down any 
words that had any meaning, gomg over and 
over the subject in order that we might 
if possible reach a principle. But then, substantially 
agreeing that we could not go beyond the bar placed 
iu our way by the Reverend Deputy from Louisiana, 
we considered how we should appeal to the Rubrics, 
and what matters ought to be touched in the Rubrics, 
for evidently it was to the Rubrics we must go ; 
and I think that the candor of this Commit- 
tee on Canons, in dealing with this subject, 
is conspicuously manifest when you consider 
that the measure which I am here now advo- 
cating on theii" part is not the great measure of that 
Committee, but, on the contrary, the very least 
measure that that Committee has proposed to this 
House on the subject of Ritual, and that therefore 
this little measure has rightly been committed to 
me as the junior member of the Committee. 

When we look at the Rubrics of the Chm^ch, we 
find, first of all, that we have to deal with defective 
Rubrics, that we also have to deal with dontful 
Rubrics, and that in the construction of these de- 
fective and otherwise doubtful Rubrics, men with 
the very strongest pm-poses of truthfulness and rec- 
titude come to directly opposite conclusions. Evi- 
dently, then, the Rubrics require some amendment, 
that they may carry out the object of telling men 
what they mean, instead of the Talleyrand object of 
concealing what the men who wrote them meant. 

In the next place, we find that the various practices 
which have sprung up under these Rubrics have 
grown up in all honesty; that men have meant to do 
right ; and that they have adopted practices which 
in their judgment are right, and it would be a 
hard measure indeed to condemn any of them, of 
one side or the other, as if they had been doing 
wrong. 

Again, we find that from these causes the English 
Church has also been in sore tribulatioTi these 
many years, and that the Convocations of the 
Church of England, including the Archbishops, 
Bishops, and Clergy, and even the Parliament of 
England, which used to be called the Lay Synod of 
England, have been consid,ering how the Rubrics of 
the Eughsh Book of Common Prayer must be 
revised, that being the only way, in their judgment, 
to reach a wise conclusion of the matter. 

When we began to consider all that this Synodical 
revision of the Rubrics means, we met again quite a 
number of things which demanded much attention. 
Persons seem to think that, if you touch only a word 
or two in a Rubric, you ha.ve done a very shght 
thing, but this is a very grave mistake. The Ru- 
brics of our Church have their roots away back in 
the ancient history of the Chm-ch. The most insig- 
nificant Rubric of our Book of Common Prayer may 
i-eally have its tap-root down in the days of the 
Apostles. And who likes to cut these things off ? 
Who likes lightly to touch them ? Who likes to lay 
rough hands on them ? 

Again, of all people in the world, I take it that this 
American people and this American Church of ours, 
wise as we all know it to be, are perhaps the least 



I able to touch the subject of Rubrics just at this par- 
1 ticular moment. What do we know of Rubrics ? How 
many are there among us who have made them a spe- 
cial subject of study ? How many among us would 
dare to say this must be or this must not be so or so ? 
I think the innate modesty of every Churchman 
in this assembty would lead him to say, " I dare not 
touch it." And let me say that the Rubrics of our 
American Book of Common Prayer require partic- 
ularly delicate handling, because, the Rubrics of 
the ancient office books from which the English 
Book of Common Prayer was compiled, v/ere writ- 
ten in language of perfectly exact and technical sig- 
nificance, so- that every word meant exactly what it 
said. Dicere meant something that was expressed 
by nothing but dicere. Cantare meant something 
that was expressed by nothing but cantare. Legere 
meant something that was expressed by nothing 
but legere. But when changes came to be made in the 
English Book of Common Prayer throughout its 
subsequent revisions, there has been even less and 
less exactness ; and in om^ American Book 
of Common Prayer I must say that the Rubrics 
are of an exemplary looseness : so that any 
j one who would touch this sub3ect must have gone 
i into a vast and large and scholarly examination, not 
! only of liturgies in general, not only of the mani- 
j fold English Rubrics that were combined together 
\ at the time of the Reformation, not only of the revi- 
I sions which have since been made of the English 
j Book of Common Prayer, not only of the his- 
tory (which our people know so little) of the 
j wise and godly men who framed the American 
I Book of Common Prayer, but he must be a 
i master of language — of that delicate subtlety which 
I belongs to the right use of liturgical speech. He 
j ought to be steeped to the lips in Elizabethan 
English, or else he will be out of all true 
I sympathy with the marvellous style of our Book of 
Common Prayer and even its structure, wonderfully 
beautiful as that is, in spite of the defects of its Ru- 
brics. 

In all these matters it is evident 
that very careful action must be entered 
into ; and we felt also that, as we do not 
wish to touch the chords that bind us to our 
mother Church of England, we ought to be partic- 
ularly careful in this matter of the revision of the 
Rubrics, so that, as in her Convocations this subject 
of Rubrics is, from day to day, and month to month, 
and year to year, with so much learning 
and critical acumen, canvassed, we may 
go on pari passu with her ; adopting any of her 
suggestions that we can follow ; and at the 
same time, perhaps, as a missionary Church, having 
some tilings to suggest that it might be well for the 
English Church to consider. 

There was another matter that came before our 
Committee and was much spoken of, namely, 
that the stin^ of this whole matter of Ritual 
legislation might be taken out if we would 
go back to the origuials of things. Why, 
sir, on the great subject of the vestments, 
does not everybody know that vestments had in the 
begiiming no meaning at all ? Does not everybody 
know that the vestments which were used were the 
vestments simply of good society or of philosophi- 
cal teachers ? And yet this question of vest- 
ments has had a factitious doctrinal meaning 
imparted to it which in no wise is inherent 
in it. When I saw that in the Upper House of Con- 
vocation of Canterbury the Bishops had there pro- 
posed (and I trust that the proposal wiU be followed) 

I that any legislation touching the ornaments of the 
Church, and of the ministers thereof, shall be con- 
ducted upon the principle that such things had an- 
ciently, and are to have now, no doctrinal signifi- 

; cance, I thanked God ; for here is the true way to 



197 



touch the vestment question, so that neither those 
who use them shall be wounded, nor those who do 
not use them left in doubt as to their significance. 
They ought to be treated merely in the light of 
expediency and of proprietj^, and no other. 

And, sir, it was desired to remove the doctrinal 
sting from the whole action of the Church in what- 
ever the Churcii might do, because, however wrong 
some meu may consider that other men are in the 
bosom of the Church, I do trust and I believe 
that this Church does not intend to plant the cruel 
lieel on any school of godly men who in the fear 
of God can work beneath her banner. It is therefore 
that this thing cannot be done now as it ought to 
be done. Has not blood boiled in the last ten days ? 
Mine has. Have not hearts been hot these last ten 
daj^s ? Mine has. And I ask the members of this 
Convention, if I were left, and I thank God I am 
not left, to make the legislation of this Church at 
this moment, wiiat kind of Rubrics I would be 
likely to make ? I take it that my honored 
and reverend brethren of the other school would 
not be willing to trust themselves now to 
make Rubrics. I do think that they would not dare 
to do it, for the Rubrics of the Book of Common 
Prayer, and the worship of the Church as therein 
represented, are too sacred to be touched by any 
but by calm, clean hands, with bent knees, and with 
an humble, prayei-f ul heart. 

Therefore it was that our Com-mittee felt 
that their grand measure should not be this 
thing of a Canon on Ritual. Our Commit- 
tee felt that that was the least part of its 
work. Our Committee felt that the grand measure 
to be introduced by some one more fit than myself 
w-ould be to ask you to raise a commission on the 
subject of Rubrical revision which might calmly and 
wisely take into consideration all this vast and 
sacred subject, and in due time, apart from passion, 
apart from contaminating influences, apart from 
anything like antagonism, with a scholarly and 
%vise and reverent heart and hand, suggest at a future 
time to this body changes that may be necessary. 
And we felt that in doing so it could be made the 
duty of that commission to recogTiize facts as 
facts stand ; that in fact ceremonies are 
in themselves things indifferent and alterable 
by ecclesiastical authority; that ceremonies 
may be useful or the reverse according 
as they are wisely used ; that parishes in the pine 
woods, or on the frontier, for example, could never 
appreciate, and ought to have no need of a ceremo- 
nial which is used with so much devotion in this 
Church and the other churches of this venerable 
parish ; and therefore, that there ought to be per- 
mitted a wide difference of ceremonial in every 
matter that does not effect doctrine. 

Then again, sir, we felt that there must be 
shortened services; and in order that there might 
be no delay concerning the shortened services, I 
think we have a measure, either proposed or to be 
proposed, providing for that as soon as possible, so 
that on that necessary point there may be no delay. 

Then as regards ceremonies, we felt that, to pre- 
vent future disturbance in the Church, we must 
endeavor tkrough our commission to find out what 
is really the safe and the only safe maximum of 
ceremonial observance, and also the minimum of 
observance that this Church will permit her clergy 
to descend to. 

I repeat that this is the measure of the Committee. 
The measure which I am introducing to-day is, if 
you will look at it, immeasurably less im- 
portant. The measure that I have the honor 
to introduce to-day is simply an ad interim 
thing, until better can be done ; and yet I 
think that this ad interim measure has been pro- 
posed and has been carried through the Cojm.mitteeL 



with as much tolerance, with as much wisdom, and 
with as much candor as could have been i^ossible in 
any body on earth. After we had deliberated on 
the whole matter relating to Rubrical revision, and 
it took, as I think, some thirteen sessions before we 
reached this point, there remained only two points 
to be determined : one, how doctrine is assailed ; 
and secondly, how the Church teaches us to protect 
doctrine. 

You will observe that the Canon as it is before you 
in printed form is exceedingly careful to touch no 
ceremonial except that which belongs to the order of 
the celebration of the Holy Communion— none 
other. Processional hymns ; recessional hymns ; Sun- 
day-school children's crosses ; vestments of more 
or less beauty — these things are left entirely out. 
I trust the time has gone by when this Church can 
be pestered out of its dignity by proposed legislation 
on any such subjects as these. We have confined 
everything that we have proposed to this Conven- 
tion to the single subject of the doctrine touching 
the Holy Communion, and here I rest our 
cause upon that subject. If a man wants 
to preach doctrine, let him preach it ; but 
let him not insinuate it ; let him do it like 
a man, and then, if his doctrine is erroneous, we 
can try him for it ; if it is doubtful, he takes 
his chance as a manly man ought always to be will- 
ing to do. If he believes that God has put a parable 
in his mouth, then the word that the Lord has put 
in his mouth, that shall he speak. Do not 
let him say the Lord has put a parable in his 
mouth and that he does not dare to tell it, but wall 
hold up a picture to represent it. We felt that 
frankness was to be demanded on aU sides touching 
the doctrine of the Church. 

Now, as to the doctrines touched in the Holy Com- 
munion, our Committee were wholly indisposed 
to express any opinion in respect to any 
phases of doctrine that might occur. We abso- 
lutely declined to declare what are erroneous 
doctrines. We absolutely declined to teU where the 
lines of limitation of the Church are set. We abso- 
lutely declined, therefore, to designate which are 
doubtful doctrines. Why ? Because, I trust, and I 
beheve I am right in trusting, that this Convention 
well knows that it is not the province of the Com- 
mittee on Canons to determine that ; nay, more, that 
it is not committed to this House to determine that. 

The deposit of faith was committed to the Apostles 
of the Church, and through them to their successors; 
and it is a sig-nificant fact that, when a Bishop is ad- 
mitted to minister in the Apostolic ofiice in this 
Church of ours, he is required to make certain oaths as 
vows to God as weU as to the Church. One of them 
is this: when he is asked the question, "Are you 
ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive 
away from the Church aU erroneous and strange doc- 
trine contrary to God's Word?" " To banish "—it is a 
harsh word, perhaps, but it isthere— " to drive away," 
as the shepherd drives away the wolf ; it is strong 
language, but it is there, and the Bishop is required 
to promise that he will do so, and to declare : "I am 
ready, the Lord being my helper." And then, 
again, he is required to swear that he "will 
diligently exercise such discipline " — mark the 
word— "as, by the authority of God's Word "—not 
merely by the legislation of this Convention, but 
"by the authority of God's Word awe? by the order 
of this Church" — which maybe Canonical or Rubrical 
or constitutional— " and by order of this Church 
is committed to him." " I wiU so do by the help of 
God," the Bishop answers. Evidently, then, there is 
power somewhere — power which is given — for when 
the Church exacts a man's oath that he will do it, it 
is understood that it gives him power to do it. On 
the othei^hand, when the deacon and priest are 
brought into their sacred ordei^s, here is one of the 



198 



questions put to them. I want my brethren to 
listen to this ; I want my brethren who are particu- 
larly careful of the question of Rubric and 
Canon to listen to this : " Will you reverently 
obey your Bishop and other chief ministers 
who, acco7'ding to the Canons of the Church, 
may have the charge and government over you, 
following" — not reluctantly, but — "following with 
a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and 
submitting yourselves to their godly judgments." 
Canons have something to do with this subject, 
then; and although we cannot touch the Rubrics of 
the Book of Common Prayer, we can recognize the 
Bishop as Ordinary, as possessing a real power, 
v/hich we indeed have the right to regulate as to its 
exercise, but which all men are bound to recognize, 
and which the priest has sworn to follow with a 
glad mind and will. There we rest our cause; there 
we rest the protection of the Church, where God has 
put it, where the Church has recognized it, where the 
priesthood has sworn to respect it. 

What is it that this Canon provides ? It provides 
simply that when in due manner a Bishop shall have 
reason to believe that erroneous or doubtful doctrines 
have been set forth by ceremonial observances in 
the order for the Holy Communion, then it shall be 
his duty to do what everybody knows he ought to do; 
that is, investigate the matter, and in investigation 
to seek the counsel of his appointed Council of Ad- 
vice — the Standing _ Committee. This is showing 
the Bishop how he 'may wisely give a godly admo- 
nition. And I think that when the Bishop of a 
Diocese, with his Standing Committee, generally in- 
cluding the clergy and laity, comes after a deliberate 
survey of the whole matter to say that practices or 
. ceremonials are erroneous or doubtful, it is sufficient 
to prove already that the doctrine is at least doubt- 
ful. It needs no further investigation. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. Will the gentle- 
man allow me to ask a question right there ? That 
the Bishop may do on the presentation of two 
Presbyters. Why have the laity no voice in this 
complaint ? 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I thank my 
friend from Georgia for asking that ques- 
tion, for two reasons. The first is, that I do not 
have to answer it, that being the province of my 
colleague from Pittsburgh (Mr. Burgwin) ; the 
second is, that we were quite sure that the inconve- 
nient parishioner would appear somewhere, though 
I did not expect him to trouble us quite so soon in 
this debate. I may just as well say that it is because 
of the certainty of his appearance that we did not 
want to let him in. 

To resume, we felt that this commission of the whole 
matter to the Bishop and the Standing Committee 
would secure what men ought to respect as a judg- 
ment; and that, avoiding questions of detail and 
practical Rubrical matters for the present altogeth- 
er, we ought simply to require the priesthood and 
the diaconate of this Church to keep their sworn ob- 
ligation. That is the point ; and I may say that, 
in comparison with that one point, all the rest of this 
Canon is smoke. It is the one point. The only 
thing that our Committee on Canons is perfectly 
unanimous and determined in having respected is 
that thing, that the Episcopate shall no longer be an 
emasculated office in this Church, but that they 
shall be able to keep their sworn obligations, and 
that the clergy shall be required to keep theirs. 

At the same time, our Committee felt that every- 
thing done in such a matter as this ought to be done 
with the utmost care that no rights should be in- 
vaded ; and therefore a man even after this investi- 
gation has a perfect right to put himself upon his 
trial. He can be tried ; he can demand a trial by 
his peers, and then the question is simply whether 
his peers of the Presbytery wiU or will not agree 



with the Committee on Canons, and, as I hope ani 
expect, with this Convention. 

Thus, Mr, President, the whole object of our 
Committee has been to secure respect for the doc- 
trine of the Church. It is true that in the course of 
our debates many times were introduced multitudi- 
nous specifications. Over and over again members 
of the Committee on Canons were desirous to 
at once proceed to specifications ; and, truly, 
some of those specifications w^ere formidable enough. 
In one paper before us I distinctly remember 
there were eleven paragraphs containing about 
thirty distinct specifications and about the small 
number of three thousand possibilities ! It was 
very evident that we had no time to go into these 
specifications, and still less to argue the merits of 
the possibilities ; and, therefore, the feeling of the 
members of the Committee on Canons was that we 
ought, if possible, to avoid specifications. Still 
it was held that some specifications ought to be 
introduced or the Canon would appear to be 
nugatory, and I must do my friends, who be- 
long in most things to the other side from myself, the 
credit to say that, while they insisted with uncom- 
promising firmness upon the introduction of some 
specifications, they nevertheless were willing 
to reduce them to the very smaU number of 
four ; and moreover they were willing to go fur- 
ther still : for they consented that these four 
specifications should be introduced, not as the en- 
actment of the Convention, but as examples of 
things which are already considered to be unlaw- 
ful under the Rubrics and Canons of the Chm'ch. 
I well remember, when the Committee came to that 
point, when on the one side and the other the 
conclusion had been reached that the mind of 
the Church demanded that there should be a 
certain amount of give and ta,ke in this whole 
matter, that the Convention was looking to us not 
as individual gladiators to fight for our own colors, 
but as men of sense to try and meet the necessities 
of the Church ; I remember the eagerness with which 
all sides of our Committee — I think I am not wrong 
in saying thirteen men in a committee of thirteen — 
grasped the suggestion, and immediately said, 
" There we stand together. " 

Mr. President, it must not be understood, and I 
trust it will not be understood that I myself, for ex- 
ample, would have introduced those specifications ; 
but I do say that the Committee could come together 
on no other basis than that, and on that basis we 
agreed ; thereby we stand : there we will stand un- 
til this Convention stands somewhere else. 

Now, if you will allow me a few words more, I 
shall have done. We had done our best ; and yet 
we were doubtful and exceedingly diffident of the 
result of our own mature judgment while there was 
so much of intense feeling and excitement in our- 
selves. We felt that we must carefully watch 
ourselves that we might do nothing unwise either 
by action or by omission; and therefore we caUed 
to our assistance, as a previous resolution of this 
House enabled us to do, the Committee on Canons 
of the other House — ^the House of Bishops. We were 
met by that Committee as represented by two of its 
most distinguished members. We submitted to them 
this Canon as it now is before this House, and 
almost to our astonishment, to mine, certainly, 
we found that that Committee said, "Gentlemen, 
we are satisfied with your work ; and if you 
wish us to present it in our House inde- 
pendently of your action, we will gladly do 
it." The Committee on Canons did not accept that 
proposition. We thought we ought to mature our 
own matter in our own House and send our action 
to the other House. But I appeal to this Convention 
now to tell me just this one thing — and they v^ll 
tell it significantly after a while — whether, taken as 



19 



9 



a whole, the matured, deliberate judgment of thir- 
teen men, representing pretty nearly all 
the schools in the Church, and then backed 
by the unanimous judgment of the Committee on 
Canons of the House of Bishops, is a thing to be 
set aside, or whether it does not demand the great 
and grave respect of this House? 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. Do I un- 
dei*stand you to say that the Committee on Canons 
of the House of Bishops were unanimously in favor 
of this Canon ? 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I understand it 
so. 

Rev. Dr. Cx\DY, of New York. I am au- 
thorized to say that they are not. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Very well, I 
can only say that the Bishop of Connecticut and 
the Bishop of Pennsylvania — my colleagues will 
corroborate it — gave us to understand that their 
Committee v/ould unanimously adopt this Canon 
and present it to their House independently, if we 
chose. 

Mr. BURG-Y\^IN, of Pittsburgh. I was authorized 
by the Chairman of the Committee on Canons of 
tbe House of Bishops to say, after consulting with 
his co-members, that that Committee would unani- 
mously recommend this Canon for adoption by 
their House, in case it was passed by ours. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. There are 
thirteen gentlemen on the floor who will attest the 
same point. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. There are thir- 
teen men here who heard the thing said, and heard 
the thing said in a very small room where there was 
no doubt about the words. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I have to say 
that I had it directly from one of the Bishops upon 
the Committee on Canons that that Committee was 
not unanimous in favor of this Canon. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. That is a mat- 
ter now, I suppose, of no importance. A mere ques- 
tion of a momentary variation, or a permanent va- 
riation, on the part of a Bishop will not determine 
the attitude of this House. The fact stands that the 
Committee on Canons of this House, and the Com- 
mittee on Canons of the other House, agreed that 
this was the only basis on which we who represented 
this House could at present come together. 

And now, Mr. President, I ask this House 
to proceed with the consideration of this Canon on 
its merits. I will not detain you three minutes longer. 

If there be any man who thinks he is wounded by 
the proposal of this Committee, let not that man 
think that his feelings have not been considered. 
If there be any man in this House who thinks that 
his school is struck at by the Canon of the Commit- 
tee, let that man banish from his mind the thought 
of any purpose on the part of this Committee to 
strike him or his school. Our Committee has desired 
simply this: that there shall be power to prevent 
things erroneous and doubtful; that that power shall 
be where the Church has already placed it ; and that 
the obligations of the clergy may be met with a glad 
mind and will, if that be possible, but that they shall 
be met anyhow. 

And now consider this action of our Committee, not 
as represented for the present in this Little Canon, but 
consider it as a whole. The whole Chm'ch is before 
this Convention in everything that touches worship 
and Ritual order. It rests with this Convention to 
say whether there shall be large, noble flexibility 
given to the worship of the Church; whether these 
questions of trifles touching petty ceremonials shall 
not be sent for ever to " the tomb of the Capulets " ; 
whether the Church shall not strip herself for her 
work and go forth conquering the land which 
the Lord has placed within our hands. That is 
the question. But it is not proposed to you in this 



thing ; it is proposed to you in the large measure 
for the revision of the Rubrics. In this which I 
have had the honor to submit to you to-day on the 
part of the Committee, I humbly suggest to this 
House that they will find that which will quiet the 
mind of the Church. They will find that which 
will be adequate to the present necessity. Thej 
will find that which will satisfy the sense of 
honest}'-, direct truth, and manhood in the 
Church, but which must not be mistaken as con- 
demning that which is not touched, or as setting 
forth that which it does not maintain. I trust that 
even if others beside myself might have preferred a 
different form or a different action in regard to 
certain matters contained in this Canon, this House 
will pass it ; and I stand pledged before this House, 
I stand pledged to the Committee on Canons, as we 
have pledged ourselves each to the other, represent- 
ing this Convention as we thought we did, and feel- 
ing that there was need of unity of action, we all 
stand pledged to abide by this Canon, which we do 
trust this House will pass. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. As the 
Deputy from Alabama represents the Committee, 
I wish to ask him a question in regard to one point 
for information. It is in relation to the words " as 
for example." Is it meant, "to wit, such and such 
things" ; because "as for example" may mean a 
very wide range of things. The example is a mere 
specimen for the measuring or testing of other 
things which lie beyond the examples themselves. 
Does the Committee on Canons mean "to wit, such 
and such things " ? 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. This really il- 
lustrates the wisdom of myself in the Committee on 
Canons. I felt perfectly certain that I could not go 
more than three steps before I should be tripped 
up ; and therefore I was too glad to obtain, as my col- 
league, Mr. Bm-gwiu, of Pittsburgh, who will explain 
that matter, I have no doubt, to the satisfaction of 
my reverend friend from Pennsylvania. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I am exceedingly anxious to speak upon this 
subject, but it only wants three minutes of our 
lunch-time. 

Rev. Dr. NORTON, of Virginia. I move that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin have any time 
within an hour in which to express his views. I 
move to suspend the rule in his case. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to suspend the 
rule so as to allow Dr. De Koven any time within 
an hour for his speech on this Canon. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
That is a little invidious. We suspended the rule 
for the last speaker without limit, and I hope the 
same courtesy will be applied to this gentleman. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to suspend, as stated by the Chair. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The recess hour having arrived, the House took a 
recess for half an hour. 
The session was resumed at two o'clock p.m. 

SYNODS OF DIOCESES. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I have 
two reports from the Committee on Canons, which 
I desire to offer, with the permission of Rev. Dr. De 
Koven, in order that they may go on the Calendar. 

The first report was read as follows : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
a Proposed Canon, ' Authorizing the Formation of 
Synods of Dioceses,' respectfully report that, on 
account of the late period of the session which has 
been reached, they are of the opinion that it is inex- 
pedient to proceed with the consideration of the 
subject, and they therefore recommend the adoption 
of the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be dis- 



200 



charged from the consideration of the proposed 
Canon, 'Authorizing the Formation of Synods of 
Dioceses.' 

"By order of the Committee. 

"ALFRED A. WATSON, 
" October 26, 1874." "Acting Chairman. 

The resolution was placed on the Calendar. 

STATE OF THE CHURCH. 

Rev, Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina, submitted 
the following report, which was placed on the Cal- 
endar : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom were re- 
ferred the amendments to Canon 15, of Title I., 
proposed by the Committee on the State of the 
Church, respectfully report that they have con- 
sidered the same and recommend their adoption, as 
contained in the following resolution : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That 
Sections 4 and 5, of Canon 15, of Title I., be amend- 
ed so as to read as follows : 

"Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the Secretary 
of the Convention of every Diocese, or of the per- 
son or persons with whom the Journals or other ec- 
clesiastical papers are lodged, to forward to the 
House of Deputies at every General Convention, on 
or before the first Monday of the session, the docu- 
ments and papers specified in this Canon. 

"Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Bishop and 
Standing Committee of the Church in every Dio- 
cese, or, if there be no Bishop, of the Standing Com- 
mittee only, to prepare, previously to the meeting 
of every General Convention,' a condensed report 
and a tabular view of the state of the Church in 
their Diocese, comprising therein a summary of the 
statistics from the parocliial reports, and from 
the Bishop's addresses, specifying the capital and 
proceeds of the Episcopal Fund, and of all Benev- 
olent and Missionary associations of Churchmen 
within the Diocese, and present the same to the 
Secretary of the House of Deputies on or before 
the first Monday of the session, for the purpose of 
aiding the Committee on the State of the Church, 
appointed by the House of Deputies in drafting 
their reports. 

" By order of the Committee, 

"ALFRED A. WATSON, 

" October 26, 1874." " Acting Chairman. 

PORTION OF TEXAS TO BE MISSIONARY GROUND. 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. With the consent 
of Dr. De Koven I ask the attention of the House 
while I make a report from the Committee of Con- 
ference in respect to the matter of Texas : 

"The Committee of Conference, to whom was 
referred the memorial of the Diocese of Texas, to- 
gether with the action of the House of Bishops and 
of the House of Deputies thereon, having had the 
same under consideration, respectfully report : 

" That whereas the Diocese of Texas, by delibe- 
rate action of the Bishop and Convention thereof has 
for urgent and sufficient reasons declared its desire to 
establish its northern and western limits on the 
northern lines of Lampasas, Coryell, McLennan, 
Limestone, Freestone, Anderson, Smith, Gregg, 
and Marion counties; and on the west- 
ern lines of Matagorda, Wharton, Col- 
orado, Fayette, Bastrop, Travis, Burnett, 
and Lampasas counties : and, whereas, this Conven- 
tion is sufficiently assured of the consent of the 
parishes lying north and west of the aforesaid 
limits to the proposed limitation ; and, whereas, 
while grave doubts are entertained by many of 
the power under our Constitution to permanently 
alter the territorial extent of a Diocese in this form, 
yet impressed by the great necessities of the Church 
in that Diocese, and of the justice of her claim 
for prompt relief. Therefore, 



"Resolved (the House of Bishops and the House 
of Deputies concurring), That the General Conven- 
tion hereby signifies its consent and agreement to 
the limitation of the jurisdiction of the Bishop and 
Convention of the Diocese of Texas to and within 
the limits above indicated, until such constitutional 
amendment and legislation thereunder can be se- 
cured as are necessary to remove the doubts afore- 
said ; and that in the mean time the territory out- 
side the limits aforesaid, and within the State of 
Texas, be held and treated as Missionary territory, 
and subject to Missionary jurisdiction. 

WILLIAM R. WHITTINGHAM, 

Bishop of Maryland. 
CHARLES TODD QUINTARD, 

Bishop of Tennessee. 
HENRY NILES PIERCE, 

Missionarv Bishop of Arkansas, etc. 
CHARLES H. HALL, 
BENJ. A. ROGERS, 
J. W. STEVENSON, 
W. F. BULLOCK, 
J. ISAAC HAZELHURST, 
G. W. RACE, 
E. T. WILDER, 
EDMUND H. BENNETT, 
EDWARD McCRADY, 
SAMUEL B. RUGGLES, 
GEORGE F. COMSTOCK." 
I move the adoption of that resolution. 
The resolution was agreed to. 
Subsequently, a message (No. 45) was received 
from the House of Bishops, announcing the passage 
of a resolution in the same words as that reported 
by Mr. Wilder. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. This is exactly the 
same as the resolution sent from our House. I move, 
to save all question, that we concur in the resolu- 
tion of the House of Bishops. 
The motion was agreed to. 

DISCIPLINE OP COMMUNICANTS. 

A message (No. 44) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

I " Resolved, That this House do concur in the reso- 
lution communicated to it in Message No. 25 from 

i the House of Deputies relating to the discipline of 
communicant members, with the addition (the 
House of Deputies concurring) of the following pro- 
viso: 'Provided, That the action of this present 
Convention be not affected by such appointment.' " 
On motion of Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, 
the proviso proposed by the House of Bishops vvas 
concurred in. 

CANON ON RITUAL. 

The Convention resumed the consideration of the 
proposed Canon on Ritual, reported from the Com- 
mittee on Canons. 

The PRESIDENT. Before Dr. De Koven com- 
mences his speech, I wish to inform the House that I 
cannot permit any interruption. I will call to order 
any person who rises to ask a question. If questions 
are to be asked, let it be done after the speaker has 
taken his seat or left the stand. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi- 
dent and gentlemen of the Convention, before I 
begin I hope you will allow me to express my thanks 
to this House for the kindness and courtesy which 
was shown to me a moment since in allowing me to 
express myself on this occasion with such measure 
of time to do it as might be needed. 

First of all, I fully recognize the point that was 
made by the clerical delegate from Alabama that 
this question is not to be considered as an isolated 
question. The Canon on Ritual comes up as one of 
four distinct measures that are brought before this 



201 



House. The Clerical Deputy from Alabama men- 
tioned three of those measures, but failed to men- 
tion the fourth of them. Those measures are, 
first, this Canou on Ritual ; second, the ap- 
pointment of a commission l3y ballot to take 
up the whole question of the Rubrics and to re- 
port to the next General Convention, if desirable, 
a revision of the Rubrics. The third is the whole 
matter of shortened services, a matter which I 
believe weighs very seriously upon the heart and 
the conscience and the mind of this Church ; and the 
f om'th was a measm^e introduced either by the Com- 
mittee on Constitutional Amendments or by the 
Committee on Canons — I think the latter — 
providing for certain freedom in the use 
of the baptismal service, permitting certain 
Rubrics to be made permissive instead of absolute, 
and also the use of the Collect for Easter Even, in- 
stead of the thanksgiving in which the word "re- 
generate " occvirs. I say, we cannot possibly con- 
sider this Canon on Ritual except we consider it as 
one of a group of measures, and so it is as absolutely 
necessary that one's position on all those measures 
should be clearly defined. 

I say then, first of all, with regard to the last of 
these measures, upon which the Clerical Deputy from 
Alabama said nothing, that I suppose it is hardly 
likely that this House can pass the proposed 
measure which was brought in by the Com- 
mittee on Canons, and "^in the itjringing in 
of which they reserved to themselves the 
right not to vote upon the measure which 
they brought in. I say I suppose this 
House can scarcely pass it, because I believe it 
will be found on consideration that any such mea- 
sure touches the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
tion, and therefore there will be a large majority of 
this House who cannot assent to it. And yet while 
I say this I am free to acknowledge that I regard 
the motive of bringing in that resolution, or pro- 
posed Canon, or whatever it was, as being worthy 
of the most profound consideration of this General 
Convention. It is a fact that cannot be gain- 
said that our Church has permitted to enter her or- 
ders, to serve at her sanctuary, to be her priests, men 
who do hold, and who have always held, and who 
held it when they were ordained, not the doctrine 
of baptismal regeneration, which I myself hold and 
which I firmly believe to be, m some sha^DC or other, 
the authorized doctrine of this Church, and which to 
deny is, I believe, to deny that article in the 
Mcene Creed which says, "I acknowledge ,ose 
Baptism for the remission of sins." Now, here 
is my point. I say a Church which 
permits and allows people to serve at her altars not 
holding a doctrine which may be said to be a doc- 
trine of this Church, or may be denied to be a doc- 
trine of this Church, is cruel to them, if she perpet- 
ually requires them to say what they do not believe; 
and therefore, while it would be hard for me, indeed 
I would oppose with the utmost of my power 
anything which would throw the slightest 
doubt upon the doctrine of baptismal 
regeneration, I for one should be prepared to refer 
to this Committee on the Revision of the Rubrics, 
provided such a commission should be appointed, 
the consideration of some means whereby the Bi- 
shop of the Diocese or the ecclesiastical authority of 
the Diocese should have the power to protect and 
to defend real and true conscientious scruples 
wherever they may be. 

I feel most happy, Mr. President, and gentlemen of 
the Convention, at the large-hearted and Chi'istian- 
like statesmanship of the measure which proposes 
that a commission shall be selected by this House by 
ballot to consider the whole question of the 
revision of the Rubrics. It is evident to any- 
body who has studied the subject that the pro- 



visions of the Church ih this country on 
the subject of our Ritual law are eminently 
vague and unsatisfactory. I know full well that 
there are legal gentlemen who have the power to 
trace through I laiow: not what dark sources all 
! sorts of laws that go back first to the Church of 
' England and then go back to the Catholic Church, 
and I bow with great reverence to all such legal 
I acumen. I merely mean to say that, for a 
clear, definite system of law, the whole thing is so 
full of vagueness and indenniteness that it does not 
come practically before the mind of this Church ; 
and surely the time has come, or if it has not come 
I to-day it is coming, when this Church of ours should 
be prepared to say, not in the interests of any nar- 
I rowness, not in the interests of bigotry or intoler- 
ance, but in the broadest -hearted way, what is the 
I limit of Ritual on the one hand, and what, on the 
1 other, giving scope for services which shall be free 
from aU sorts of Ritual, that men may go where 
they will, and use extempore prayers and preach 
! the Word of God wherever it is needed ; and permit- 
i ting those, on the other hand, who love a high and 
! holy service, to have all the glory and the beauty 
\ which belong to God's holy Catholic Church ; and I 
I say that a commission formed in that broad-heart- 
i ed spirit will serve to protect this Church from per- 
: petual accusations of licentiousness and lawlessness 
; against those who would rather die than disobey 
i one of our known laws. 

I come now to the Canon which is before us ; and, 
first of all, I must explain just precisely what I wish 
to effect with regard to it. If 1 could have my own 
way, I am free to say that I would much prefer that 
there would be no Canon passed whatsoever. At 
the same time, the main principle of this Canon 
1 I assent to as a measure for the time, until 
such time as the law of this Church on the sub- 
ject of Ritual is laid down. That is to say, I feel, 
if matters are doubtful,it is infinitely better that the 
Bishop and the Standing Committee of the Diocese 
should have the power to regulate it than that in- 
dividual presbj^ers should have that power ; and if 
any one says that such a principle will make a use 
for Wisconsin and a use for Ohio, vvhich 
uses will differ, I have only to say that 
it is infinitely better to have a differ- 
ing use in Wisconsin and a differing use in 
Ohio than to have forty different uses in Wisconsin 
and forty different uses in Ohio. But I only accept 
this, let me say, as a measure for the time, to meet 
a difficulty, because our law is not clear, is not dis- 
tinct, and until such time as it is clearly and definite- 
ly laid down. Consequently, while I am prepared to 
vote for the main principle of this Canon, there are 
some portions of it which I could not possibly vote 
i for, and which it will be my object to show to this 
House that, if we do vote for, we shall make a mis- 
take, a mistake that nobody here would like to fall 
into. 

In the first place — and this point I am not going 
to dwell upon — I do think that the forbidding 

! of particular things like the use of incense, the 

I placing or carrying or retaining a crucifix — I am 
not particular about those things; but the forbid- 
ding of any particular thing does interfere with 

I that principle which has been laid down by the 
Deputy from Alabama, and which I believe to 

I be a true principle. This Church cannot 
legislate upon her worship in any other way 

I than by Rubric ; this Church cannot legislate upon 

j her doctrine in any way except by an article of re- 
ligion ; and if this House, or any other House, at- 
tempts to legislate vipon Ritual or upon doctrine by 
indirection, there are many who will feel that it is 
unconstitutional ; and this is my point : the forbid- 
ding of certain particulars does seem to interfere 

' with that principle, for it may be just as much go- 



202 



ing against that principle to forbid certain things as 
it is to allow them. It is not positive indeed, but it 
is negative ; and thus by specifying certain things, 
as is done in this Canon, I think the great principle 
is interfered with. 

I come now to my second objection to the Canon, ] 
and that is to the clause Vv'hich is to be found in the : 
first section : "If any Bishop have reason to be- 
lieve, or if complaint be made to him in writing by | 
two or more of his Presbyters." The clause that I i 
object to is, "Or if complaint be made to him in 
writing by two or more of his Presbyters." It is I 
quite right that the Bishop should govern his Dio- j 
cese ; it is quite right that his standing Committee I 
should be his council of advice ; but I must say 
that I trust this House is not going to organize the 
Reverend Paul Pry into a canonical institution in 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States of Amei'ica. Are we to have two or more 
Presbyters — and, generally, the Presbyters who 
would go about on that business are not the most 
earnest and the most devout that can be found — for 
this melancholy purpose ? I would not wish to be the | 
Presbyter who should go and visit his brother's 
parish for the purpose of finding out just 
what he was doing, and measuring the angle at which 
he bowed, or the kind of devotion that he showed 
when he Imelt on his Imees in the church. I say that 
to organize two Presbyters to go and find out what 
other people are doiiig is simply to organize 
something v/hich the gentlemanly heart of 
our Church wiU utterly and totally condemn. 
And here let me say that I recognized the import- 
ance of the question which was put by a Lay Dep- 
uty from Georgia to the Clerical Deputy from Ala- 
bama. He asked, " Why not laymen ? " Certainly 
if they have Presbyters to do it, by all means, if lay- 
men want it, give them the same privilege. But 
let me say that the Canon is wiser than the 
Clerical Deputy from Alabama showed that 
ic was, because it does provide and provides 
an honorable way for this thing. It says that 
the Bishop may call together his Standing Com- 
mittee as a council of advice, and with them inves- 
tigate the matter. He can send his clei'gy, the dig- 
nified clergy of his Diocese ; he can send the laity, 
representatives of his Diocese. They can go in an 
honorable, straightforward way. They can say, 
"We have come to investigate yom* practices, and 
we have come to see whether you are symbolizing 
wrong doctrines. " They can do it in a canonical 
and proper manner ; and let me say that I do not 
believe there is any clergyman in this Church who 
would not accept such a visitation and be glad of it, 
and explain anything which might seem doubtful or 
be supposed to symbolize erroneous doctrine. 

I am aware — and here I must say something which 
I hope I shall be excused for saying — that there is a 
sort of public idea that Ritualists (and I do not 
quite like to say this, because everybody knows 
that I am the only clerical Ritualist in this House, so 
that I may possibly seem to be defending myself) 
— there has been a sort of idea that Ritualists are 
very disingenuous, and I can hear down in the heart 
of some gentleman who so believes a thought 
something like this: "Well, if the Bishop sent 
his Presbyters and laity to examine into this 
matter, that cunning Pv-itualist then would not 
do the things, you know." [Laughter.] Well, Mr. 
President, aU I have to say is, that if there 
is any Ritualist of this sort, I am inclined to think 
you will scarcely bind him by canonical regulations ; 
but, if he can cheat in this way, he may perhaps 
find a way to cheat you in another ; but I am happy 
to say that I do not know any Ritualist who could 
possibly be guilty of such a wrong. 

And now I come to my third point, and that is to 
be found in the third line of this same section : 



" Ceremonies or practices during the celebration of 
the Holy Communion, not ordained or authorized 
in the Book of Common Prayer, and setting 
forth or symbolizing erroneous or doubtful doc- 
trines." The word that I want to object to is 
the word "doubtful." I was very much amused 
at the Clerical Deputy from Alabama, who 
read from the Prayer-Book what a Bishop was 
required to promise. He read that he was required 
to promise that he would drive away erroneous 
and strange doctrines. The Bishop is never re- 
quired to drive away erroneous and doubtful doc- 
trines. Permit me to say, gentlemen, that there are 
no such things as doubtful doctrines. Doctrine is 
either true or false. The Truth of God is true, and 
the Kes of the devil are false. There can 
be no such thing as doubtful doctrines. 
The term is used in its subjective sense. Objectively, 
all doctrines are true or false. Subjectively, you 
and I may doubt about them. My objection to it is, 
that it covers a field the extent of which we do not 
realize. 

One Presbyter may think a doctrine doubtful, 
and another jPresbyter may not think it doubtful ; 
one standing committee may think it doubtful, and 
another standing committee may not think it doubt- 
ful. Or, as our standing committees change every 
year, the standing committee of 1874 may decide it 
to be doubtful, and the standing committee of 1875 
may decide it to be true ; and perhaps that very 
thing may be the issue upon which the standing 
committees may be elected or defeated. 
Therefore let me say that the change in the 
old-fashioned words, "strange or erroneous doc- 
trines "into "erroneous or doubtful doctrines," is 
simply to introduce into this Church the beginning 
of endless confusion. 

And now I come to the particular specifications. 
Let me say that I believe this Church has the right, 
if it does it in a lawful way, to regulate its cere- 
monies as it pleases ; and if it chooses to forbid the 
use of incense, I have nothing to say. I am a 
Presbyter of this Church of twenty years' 
standing, and I am accused of Ritualism. Al- 
low me to say that, though I have 
attended Ritualistic services in England and this 
country, and I am well aware that incense is and 
has been used, I never was in any church in con- 
nection with the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
which incense was used. I remember upon one ac- 
casion having a gentleman call to see me at my 
own chapel, and when he arrived in the 
chapel a very singular thing came over 
him. He commenced making a sort of snufiing as 
if he were smelling something ; and finally he said 
to me, "My dear brother, is that incense that I 
smell?" [Laughter.] I was compelled to say to 
him that I never bad used incense, and that I thought 
the smell was nothing but the smell of oak wood ; 
and he was perfectly satisfied. [Laughter.] 

Now let it be noticed ; and in order to get the 
force of my argument you will have to follow the 
Canon, and I believe the argument to be one which, 
if I can set it forth, will convince the House that at 
least that specification, "the use of incense, " is an 
utter piece of nonsense. Let us see. It says, " Cere- 
monies, or practices during the celebration of the 
Holy Communion not ordained or authorized 
in the Book of Prayer, and setting 
forth or symbolizing erroneous or doubtful doc- 
trines, have been introduced into a parish within his 
jurisdiction; and, as examples, the following are de- 
clared to be considered as such." 

That is, it does not simply forbid the use of 
incense — I wish that were all. What it does is to 
say that the use of incense symbolizes errone- 
ous and strange doctrines, which is a dreadful 
thing to commit this House to. For this House 



203 



to forbid the use of incense is a very proper thing, 
perhaps ; but for this House to say that the use of 
incense synibohzes false doctrines, is for this House 
to put itself in utter and total opposition to the 
Holy Scriptures ; foi", remember, what does David 
say "Let my prayer be set forth in Thy sight as 
the incense, and let the lifting up of my hands be an 
evening sacrifice." In other words, David says that 
the use of incense, to which that holy prophet and 
king was accustomed — ha^ang not lived in our own 
day — symbolized prayer ; and will this Church say 
—is it prepared to say, that the use of incense, whicK 
symbolizes prayer, symbolizes false doctrine ^ 

Then again, I heard it read in St. Thomas's Church 
vesterday morning at the beginning of the services, 
^' From the rising of the sun even unto the going 
down of the same, my name shall be great among 
the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be 
offered unto my name, and a pure offering ; 
for my name shall be great among the heathen, 
saith the Lord of Hosts. " I am not going to enter 
into the question whether that was a prophecy of 
something that was literally to take place. Some 
people say it was, but I am afraid they are Ritual- 
ists. My only question is as to its symboUcal 
meaning. The prophet Malachi holds that incense 
symbolizes the pure offering, I suppose the Euchar- 
istic offering, and for the sake of this argument I 
am wilhng for the moment to concede that that offer- 
ing is nothing but an offering of prayer and thanks- 
giving ; but I do not think so. Then we are to mider- 
stand that incense, symbolizing the pure Eucharistic 
offering, symbolizes false doctrine ! Or again — and 
this is something more awful — when Aaron 
stood between the dead and the living with 
the censer in his hands, and the smoke of the 
incense was wafted to heaven, the people 
were saved. What did he typify but that 
eternal Son of God who alone stands between the 
dead and the living, and whose mediation for the 
souls of men for ever ascends to the right hand of 
God ? and that ascending incense symbolized the 
atoning sacrifice and the everlasting mediation. 
And is this Chm*ch, then, prepared to say that the 
eternal mediation and the awful atoning sacri- 
fice are false doctrines ; or, when the priest 
on the great day of atonement went before the mercy- 
seat, and clouds of incense covered it, typifying 
the ceaseless intercession of the Son of God, is this 
Church prepared to say that such a use of incense 
symbolized false docti'ines ? But this Canon, if it 
be passed as it stands, makes it so. 

I pass over the second specification, although I 
must say that I do not think the iconoclasm goes 
quite far enough ; for, when in St. Thomas's Church 
only yesterday morning I witnessed the great 
statues of the Apostles standing all around, I am 
free to say that, had I not been as much of a Pro- 
testant as" I am, as I bent and bowed I might have 
been led into the Roman error of worshipping images 
or something of that kind. [Laughter.] I do not think 
that thing goes quite far enough. Cut out your 
crucifix from your stained windows, put them out of 
your prayer-books, forbid pictures as well as images, 
if it be necessary ; but do not let us believe in this 
day that the mere looking at the image of the human 
nature of our Divine R,edeemer, and exciting our 
emotions by his thorn-crowned brow and his 
bleeding head and pierced hands, can possibly 
be said to symbolize false doctrine. 

ISTow, I pass over ' ' the Elevation of the Elements 
in the Holy Communion in such manner as to ex- 
pose them to the view of the people as objects 
towards which adoration is to be made," only with 
one remark, for it will answer something that was 
said by the Clerical Deputy from Maryland, and 
that is this : that if that is "^to be decided to be a 
thing which symbolizes false doctrine, I am free to 



say that we pronoimce against every other true 
portion of the Christian Church that has ever 
been since the beginning of time ; no one can read 
the ancient Liturgies without finding just this: 
" When the consecration is over, before priest or peo- 
ple have received, and the priest comes forward 
holdmg the holv things in his hands, turning to- 
wards the people he says, ' Holy things for holy 
persons.' and the people answer, ' To Thee, O Lord,' 
and burst forth into a hymn of adoration, and 
of praise to the present Saviour " — I say 
that after the consecration is over, 
according to the Liturgy of St.^ Mark, 
I which writers on this subject date back to about the 
year 200, the priest comes forward with the holy 
I things in his hands, and actually turns to the people 
i and says, "Bow the knee to Jesus," and the people 
I answer, "To Thee, O Lord." Again, i say that in 
the Liturgy which the most careful Anglican writers 
declare to be that Liturgy that most represents the 
mind of the Apostles, the Clementine Liturgy, when 
the priest comes forward and says, "Holy things 
for holy people," the people break forth 
into this h;^mn, " Glory to God in the Highest, and 
on earth peace and good-will toward men; Rosanna 
to the son^of David ; blessed is he that cometh in the 
name of the Lord; God is the Lord, and He hath ap- 
peared unto us. Hosanna in the highest." 

And let me call the attention of the Lay and 
Clerical Deputies from ISTew Jersey to the fact 
that I am told that in the Diocese of New Jersey 
the Bishop, when he consecrates, when he 
comes to that part of the service where he 
breaks the bread, turns around to the people, and 
breaks it in presence of the people, and again in 
the apsidal chancel, when the priest stands behind 
the altar facing the people, he does exactly that 
self -same thing, and shall we say that this symbol- 
izes false doctrine ? 

Now, I come to another point : "Any act of ad- 
oration of or toward the Elements in the Holy 
Communion, such as bowings, prostrations, genu- 
flexions, and all such hke acts, not authorized or al- 
lowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer." I am exceedingly pleased to 
find that this Canon makes a distinction which the 
public mJnd has not made before this session. I 
was delighted to hear the Clerical Deputy from 
Massachusetts (Rev. Dr. Huntington), who 
is always clear in whatsoever he says, 
state very carefully and distinctly the differ- 
ence between outward adoration and inward ador- 
ation, between external acts of adoration and inter- 
nal acts of love and honor. The distinction is a vi- 
tal one. It is one which it behooves this 
Chmxh carefully to remember, for I arn 
free to say one thing which, believe it, 1 
say with the deepest humility; and yet I Imow 
when I say it there are a thousand hearts that will 
respond to me. You may take away from us, if 
you will, every external ceremony: you may ta,ke 
away altars, and super-altars, and lights, and incense, 
and vestments ; you may take away, if you will, the 
eastward position ; you may take awa,y every 
possible ceremony ; and you may command us 
to celebrate at 'the altar of God vtdthoiit any 
external symbolism whatsoever. You may 
give us the most barren of all observances, and 
we will submit to you. If this Church commands 
us to have no ceremonies, we will obey. But, gen- 
tlemen, the very moment any one says we shall not 
adore our Lord present in the Eucharist, then 
from a thousand hearts wiU come the answer, 
"Let me die in my own country and be buried 
by the grave of mv father and my mother; 
for to adore Christ's person in his Sacrament, that 
is the inahenable privilege of every Chiistian and 
Catholic heart. How we do it, the way we do it, 



204 



the ceremonies with which we do it, are utterly, 
utterly indiiferent ; the thing itself is what we 
plead for, and I know- 1 should not plead to unkind 
oi' unfeeling hearts, I remember those words of 
the great Christian poet : 

"No distance breaks the tie of blood ; 

Brothers are brothers evermore ; 
Nor wrong nor wrath of deadliest mood 

That magic may o'erpower. 
Oft ere the common source be known 

The Idndred drops will seek their own. 
And throbbing pulses silently 

Move heart toward heart by sympathy. 

" So is it with true Christian hearts : 

Their mutual share of Jesus' blood- 
An everlasting bond imparts 

Of holiest brotherhood. 
O might we all our lineage prove, 

Give and forgive, do good and love. 
In mutual efforts of kind strife, 

Light 'ning the load of daily life. 

" There is much need, for not as yet 

Are we in safety or repose ; 
The holy house is still beset 

By leaguer of stern foes ; 
Wild thoughts within, bad men without. 

All evil spirits round about 
Are banded in unblest device 

To spoil love's earthly paradise, 

" Then draw we nearer, day by day. 

Each to his brethren— all to Grod. 
Let the world use us as she may, ' 

We may not lose our road; — 
Not wandering, though in grief to find 

The martyrs' foes still keep her mind ; 
But fixed to hold love's banner fast. 

And by submission win at last. " 

And yet I am thankful to say that this clause, 
marked "d," instead of forbidding Eucharistic ad- 
oration, is the most definite assertion of it that ever 
was passed in our Church since the time of the Re- 
formation, and I mean to prove that fact. I do 
not know, of course, whether there was any Ritual- 
ist amongst the great Committee of Thirteen. I do 
not know how this came to pass. I do not know 
whether it befell them as it does sometimes befall 
men, that they build other than they intend to. 
But I do not hesitate to sa^^ that that 
clause is the greatest assertion of Eucharistic adora- 
tion that has ever been i^assed since the time of the 
Reformation. Now let me prove it. 

You will please look at the words, "any act of 
adoration of or towards the Elements in the Holy 
Communion, such as bowings, prostrations, genu- 
flexions, and all such like acts not authorized or al- 
lowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Common 
Prayer." In other words, if there is any such act 
allowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Common 
Prayer, then that we have a right to do. Now, if I 
can prove that there is such an act allowed 
by the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, and 
that, historically, this Church has a very peculiar 
relation to this act, then I think I shall have proved 
my point. Now, in the Book of Common Prayer 
there is but one Rubrical direction of this sort. It is 
all I want. We are allowed to kneel, and I do not 
want any other posture whatsoever to express 
my feelings of adoration to Christ. We are allow- 
ed to kneel. Everybody knows that. It does not 
need to be proved by looking into the Prayer- 
Book. 'Now, that question as to kneeling in 
the Eucharist has historically been a very vexed 
question in the Anglican Church. No sooner was 
the first Book of Edward VI. put out than the King 



and his Council surreptitiously put into it, without 
the consent of the Convocation, an explanation of 
the kneeling ; and the explanation showed 
what they thought the kneeling might 
mean, that this kneeling is not meant to 
express any adoration of 'any real or essential 
presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and 
blood." But no sooner did Bloody Mary come in 
than she abolished it, and when Queen 
EHzabeth ascended the throne she did 
not revive it, for the Prayer-Book of 
Elizabeth has not that declaration m it. When 
King James the First came to the throne, his 
Prayer-Book did not have it either, and it was not 
until the time of Charles II. that the question came 
up, and then it came up in this way : 
Those people who were not willing to con- 
sent to the Act of Uniformity sent in to the 
Savoy Conference, at the beginning of the 
reign of Charles II., a series of objections to things 
in the Prayer-Book, and one of those objections was 
to kneeling in the Holy Communion, because it 
implied adoration ; and then the divines of 
King Charles's time, who were assuredly sus- 
pected of being very High Church indeed, 
quite inclined towards the Laudian school, while 
they put in that declaration as to kneeling did it 
with a significant alteration. That alteration was 
that no adoration is due to any " corporal pre- 
sence of Christ's natural flesh and blood." 
They changed the words " real or 
essential presence" to the words "any corporal 
presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood ; " and 
ever since around that declaration of kneehng there 
has been a contest in the Church of England; and 
there was a contest only the other day, and the judg- 
ment of the Privy Council, which I have here, de- 
clares expressly, though the Privy Council of coui'se, 
everybody knows, is tolerant of everything except- 
ing faith, I say the Privy Council in their judg- 
ment expressly assert that the declaration of 
kneeling cannot be so construed as to deny 
the right to adore Christ present in the 
elements ; that it includes both ideas. 

Now I come to my argument. Strangely enough, 
when the American Book of Common Prayer was 
adopted, the declaration of kneeling was left out. 
It is not to be found in our Book of Common Prayer, 
and I tliink I know the reason why. It pleased Grod 
to give to Bishop White an utter abhorrence of all 
Calvinism, and he knew that that Rubric could be 
interpreted in a Calvinistic direction ; and, though 
you cannot find any allusion to its omission in the 
records of the time, some how or other it slipped 
out, and I suppose it slipped out precisely as a single 
word in the Catechism has slipped out. It says, 
" The Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the 
elect people of God "; that is the way it reads in the 
English Prayer Book ; but in our Prayer-Book it is, 
"The Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the 
people of God." The word "elect" was left out un- 
der" a mistake, no doubt, but under that dreadful 
terror of possible Calvinism which so affected the 
excellent first Bishop of Pennsylvania. 

It will be justly said that this clause of the Canon 
is a contribution in the same direction, and when 
it impliedly asserts that there are certain acts of 
adoration which are authorized and allowed by the 
Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, and people 
remember that kneeling is allowed, it will not take 
twenty-five years before this clause of the Canon 
will wheel into line, and will be an argu- 
ment in favor of Eucharistic adoration in the 
books of that day of the very strongest character. 
And let me say that, if our debates go down to pos- 
terity, as I trust they may, the fact that I have 
pointed this out to this House, being duly recorded 
and duly read, will add a point and pungency to the 



205 



fact, if you pass it without disproving what I have 
to say. 

These are my objections to the Canon, and I 
intend to propose an amendment to this Canon. I 
would not for the world bring it before this House 
without ha\-ing first submitted it to the Committee 
on Canons. They tell us that like the Greeks of 
old they have 'burned their ships, and mean 
to stand or fall V>y this Canon; and woe 
betide me if T. attempt to pass anything 
through this House with the great Com- 
mittee against me, and so I will not propose it 
to this House: I will only propose that it be referred 
for their consideration to the Committee on Canons. 
Now let me read it ; and I believe, although I have 
argned with a great deal of earnestness, what I have 
to say is really in the interest of truth, and peace, 
and kindness, ""and love, and the settlement of difB- 
culties. 

" If any Bishop shall have reason to believe that 
ceremonies or practices, daring the celebration of 
the Holy Commimion, not ordained or authorized 
in the B'^ook of Common Prayer, or setting forth or 
symbolizing doctrines not according to those 
of this Church, have been introduced into a parish 
within his jurisdiction, it shall be the duty of 
such Bishop to summon the Standing Committee as 
his council of advice, and with them to investigate 
the matter ; and if, after investigation, it shall ap- 
pear to the Bishop and Standing Committee that 
doctrines not in accordance ■'.vith those of this 
Church have in fact been set forth or symbolized 
by ceremonies or practices," etc. 

And the rest of the Canon is just the same. The 
amendment merely leaves out these specifications ; 
it leaves out the word "doubtful" in connection 
with " doctrines ; it leaves out the two prying 
Presbyters, and keeps the Bishop and Standing 
Committee to their dutj- ; and if they do it, 
I am free to say tbat"^ all over this country 
there will be a tolerable freedom from rites, ajid 
ceremonies, and practices which oifend the mind of 
this Church. That is my proposition. I say, I con- 
sider it in the interest of truth and peace ; and if such 
a proposition is brought forward. I myself will vote 
for it. I understand that a Lay Deputy from Mary- 
land has a Canon drawn up that he wishes to 
bring forward, and if at this moment it would be 
of any service to him to bring it forward, to be re- 
ferred at the same time to the Committee on Ca- 
nons, it will give me great pleasure to yield the 
floor to him for that purpose, if it be not taken out 
of my allotment of time. 

Ml'. BLANCHARD, of Maryland. Is that legiti- 
mate ? 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I ask the Rev. 
Doctor from Wisconsin to repeat his proposition. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsm. The Canon 
I propose ? 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Preciselv. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. "l will 
read it again : 

" If any Bishop has reason to believe that cere- 
monies or practices during the celebration of the 
Holy Communion not ordained or author- 
ized in the Book of Common Prayer, and setting 
forth or symbolizing doctrines not in accordance 
■^vith those'of this Church, have been introduced into 
a parish within his jurisdiction, it shall be the duty 
of such Bishop to summon the Standing Committee 
as his council of advice and with them to investi- 
gate the matter ; and if after investiga- 
tion it shall appear to the Bishop and 
the Standing Committee that doctrines not in ac- 
cordance with those of this Church have, in fact, 
been set forth or symbolized by ceremonies or prac- 
tices not ordained or authori^ied as aforesaid," etc. 

And the rest of the Canon is just as was reported. 



It is merely leaving out the specifications and the 
two imhappy Presbyters and the "doubtful doc- 
trine." 

Mr. BLANCHARD. of Maryland. Now if the 
gentleman wishes I will read my proposition. The 
following is proposed as a substitute for the enact- 
ing part of the Canon reported by the. Committee : 

" The following ceremonies or practices during 
the celebration of the Holy Communion are hereby 
prohibited : 

"1. The use of incense. 

'•2. The placing, or carrying, or retaining a cru- 
cifix in anv oart of the ijlace of public worship. 
"3. The elevation of th e Elements in the Holy Com- 
! munion in such manner as to expose them to the 
} \-iew of the people as objects to winch adoration is 
I to be offered. 

' ' 4. Any act of adoration of or towards the Ele- 
ments in the Holy Commmiion. 

"Sec. 2. If a.ny Bishop have reason to beheve 
that the ceremoiiies or practices hereby prohibited 
have been introduced into any parish or congrega- 
tion within his jm-isdiction, it shall be his duty to 
admonish in wi'itiug the minister of the parish or 
congregation aforesaid to discontinue such cere- 
monies or practices, and. if the minister shall disre- 
gard such admonition, it shaU be the duty of the 
Standing Committee of the Diocese to cause him to 
be tried before the proper ecclesiastical court of the 
Diocese having jurisdiction of the offences for which 
ministers may be tried and punished," 
I offer that as a substitute. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsm. At the 
end of my speech I propose to offer my amendment, 
and also this subslitute which is proposed : but if 
the Committee on Canons desire it, I wiU simply 
propose that they be referred, or if they tell me 
I shaU not be doing discom'tesy to the Com- 
mittee, I will ventm-e to propose them immedi- 
atelv to the House, for I do not venture to interfere 
with what I think is a rightfid thing, that a 
Committee constituted like that which has had 
this subject before it, and has reported to us a 
Canon, which I am ready to acknowledge is very 
moderate, and which, no "doubt, has been the result 
of a good deal of consideration and of a certain 
amount of comprondse, should not have at least 
the opportunity of fully considering the proposed 
amendment. 

Now, I come to something which is perhaps 
! more important than anytlmig I have said al- 
i ready, and yet which I feel constrained to say. 
] I listened with a certain amount of astonish- 
ment to an assertion which was made in a differ- 
j ent way by two persons in this House during the 
couree " of our debates. A gentleman said here 
j that a certain person did not believe in 
! Eucharistic adoration. Another gentleman 
I said that Eucharistic adoration was a doctrine 
i tolerated in om- Church. And there are a great 
• many people who evidently beheve that Eucharistic 
; adoration is a thing that is not only not allowed, 
but is vei-y wicked and very sinful. Now, I have 
only to say that, while I have no question that 
the' gentlemen who use this language have 
: in their own minds a clear and detenu in ate 
' sense in which they use it, yet to say 
: that one does not believe in Eucharistic adoration, 
; or to say that Eucharistic adoration is a tolerated 
doctrine, is f^imply to say a thing which to the theo- 
logical mind is simply" and totally unintelligible ; 
for — and here I am g"oing to take a bold flight of 
ambition — if there be one man in this ilouse whom 
; I admire for his logic, for his clearness, for his 
' wonderful power of management, it is a Clerical 
Deputy from Virginia (Rev. Dr. Andrewst. whose 
voice has scarcely been heard duiing this Conven- 
tion. I always tremble when he speaks. Now let me 



206 



say that in my poor humble way I desire to follow 
him ; and when I read in a very clever and able 
article that he had found out no less than seven 
ways in which the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
tion might be held in our Church, I tried to think 
in how many ways the doctrine of Eucharistic 
adoration might be held somewhere. But, even 
after long etf ort, I have only been able to discover 
six. So I am just one behind him, and I am glad in 
this respect that Wisconsin is not quite so advanced 
as Virginia. [G-reat laughter.] 

The PRESIDENT. If there is any attempt at 
applause, the galleries will have to be cleared. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. The first 
sense in which Eucharistic adoration may be held 
to be afl&rmed, or denied, or tolerated, is that to 
which I have already alluded — namely, that acts 
of adoration paid towards or to the elements 
make up Eucharistic adoration ; and yet it is 
quite possible that a man may go through all sorts 
of genuflexions and prostrations, and never adore 
Christ in the Eucharist at ail. The Clerical Deputy 
from Maryland (Rev. Dr. Leeds) told us that in the 
Eastern Church, at the greater entrance, when the 
elements unconsecrated are brought forth, the people 
prostrate themselves before the unconsecrated el- 
ements in token of their belief in the coming do^vn 
of the Son of Llod into this world ; and so it is possible 
that for far less reason than the adoring of Christ in 
the Eucharist, for the sake of all sorts of things, a 
man may go through with external acts of adora- 
tion. But I have said sufficient about that. The 
distinction, I ti'ust, is impressed on the mind of this 
House. 

The second is (and I have heard people say it in 
this House), that it is wrong to adore the Sacrament. 
The word " sacrament," as everybody knows, is an 
ambiguous term, and may mean either the outward 
elements, or that union of the outward and inward 
which makes up the Sacrament, or, again, the 
whole sacramental rite. I suppose when they 
say this they mean the outward part of the sacrament. 
It is quite possible that in Mexico and the states of 
South America, and possibly in Southern Europe, 
where the host is carried about the streets — a prac- 
tice which I believe to be a terrible evil — it is pos- 
sible that the ignorant may adore the outward el- 
ements; but I never heard or knew of anybody in 
our Church or in the Church of England who 
held to any such erroneous or false doctrine. 

There is a third sense in which a man may hold 
Eucharistic adoration. He may believe that after 
consecration the substance of Christ's B ody and 
Blood has taken the place of the substance of the 
bread and wine, and that nothing but the accidents 
of the bread and wine remain. In other words, he 
may hold the doctrine of the Council of Trent 
on the subject of transubstantiation, and, 
when he falls down before the consecrated 
elements, he may be adoring not the substance of 
the bread and wine, but the substance of Christ's 
Body and Blood hidden under these veils, and 
believing in transubstantiation, may adore 
Christ present in His substance ; and this the 
R,oman Church does. Let me say that I do 
not know of any one in our Church who 
holds to Eucharistic adoration in that sense ; 
and when I heard a Lay Deputy from Kentucky, in 
a very able and interesting speech, say that he only 
wished that somebody, whose name shall not be 
mentioned, would come out and say, " I abhor and 
detest the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation," 
I feel certain ths^t any well-trained Churchman 
would be able to say that. And now, I come to 
the fourth view of Eucharistic adoration, 
and that is, that a man may hold that 
Christ's body and blood, and so Christ's human 
nature, and so Christ Himself, is in sacramental union 



with the bread and wine after consecration, not by 
transubtantiation, not by impanation, not by con- 
substantiation, not by a view which is large- 
ly held in our Church and which is known 
as identity of substance; but in sacramental 
union with the holy elements, and so, not ador- 
ing the external elements, may yet pay his rever- 
ent homage to the Son of God whom he believes to be 
present in His own sacrament. Or again, a man may 
hold in our Church, and if he does so he can claim very 
venerable authority for it, and I am free to say that 
the difference between this view and the other is 
rather a difference of words than of things— he may 
hold that Christ our Lord is person- 
ally present by His Divine Person in the 
Holy Eucharist. He may hold that Christ's human 
nature is present there, first by way of conjunc- 
tion, secondly by way of co-operation, and third- 
ly by way of force and efficacy ; and holding that 
Christ in His Divine Person is there, and there to 
give us His own Body and Blood, though that Body 
and blood be not in the mind of this person con- 
nected with the elements, he too may adore Christ 
present in the Eucharist. 

Or again, he may hold something which I believe 
the conscience of this Church will utterly and 
totally give up, but which nevertheless is held in 
our Church, and that is that Christ our Lord is to 
be adored and only adored at the right hand of His 
Father in lieaven ; and holding that, he may believe 
tha,t the Eucharist is the very special opportunity 
for paying his express adoration to Christ, though 
absent in heaven ; and he too may adore Christ 
by means of the Eucharist, though he may adore 
Him as only at the right hand of His Father. 

And so I "^assert that there are no less than six 
ways in which a man can believe in Eucha- 
ristic adoration — ^two of them v/hich are not 
held in our Church at all, one of them which no 
logical mind can possibly hold, a.nd the other three 
of which, I am free to say, include in some one 
of their forms ninety-nine one-hundredths of the 
Churchmen of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the United States of America ; and therefore I assert 
that v/hen a man says he does not believe in Eucha- 
ristic adoration, or asserts that it is tolerated or 
not tolerated, without further explanation, he says 
something that is totally unintelligible. And this 
leads me to a thought which is of the gravest pos- 
sible description. Our Church in this country was 
planted in the darkest days of the Church of Eng- 
land. It brought over here every narrow feeling, 
every insulated policy, every miserable con- 
venience that resulted from the connection of 
the Church and State ; and for 177 years 
our Church was left without a Confirmation, with- 
out an Ordination, without a Bishop, for all 
these evils to crystallize around her. And when 
it pleased God to give us Bishops, what for 
seventy years has been the life of the American 
Church ? She has been struggling for her own ; she 
has been grasping at the truth of God ; she has 
been seeking for that which was her heri- 
tage f i-om the ages ; she has been striving to obtain 
in all its fulness that which came down to her 
from her fathers. When I was a boy, the doctrine 
of baptismal regeneration was a doubtful doctrine, 
so very doubtful that a man scarcely dared to say 
that he held it, and I have lived to see petitions pre- 
sented to this House desiring the alteration of the 
Prayer-Book because it does distinctly assert 
the doctrine of baptismal regeJieration. 
Now let me say about the doctrine of the 
Eucharist, there is precisely this, that we have not 
arrived at a full and clear determination about it. 
Better a thousand times, my brethren, that rash and 
incautious expressions should be used, better that 
things should be said that the great heart of this 



207 



Church may possibly condemn, than that we should 
hastily formulate this doctrine. Let me illustrate: 
1 know there is an illustration which presents itself 
to your own minds, and which it is quite impossible 
for me to assent to after the adjectives with which 
I have qualified it. Nor do I mean to apply those 
adjectives to this that I shall say : 

TTithiu the past three years I have read a charge 
from a Bishop of this Church, honored, venerated, 
one of the noblest and best of our most aged Bishops, 
adA^ocating sometliing which he called in temis 
Zwingiianism. I have read also a pamphlet of a 
Clerical Deputy from Virginia, advocating the : 
same thing. I do not mean to say that it was | 
Zwingiianism. It did not seem to be as bad as Zwin- 
giianism ; but, nevertheless, it w^as a clear and | 
definite expression of what anybody would i 
say was a very Low Church view of this subject, \ 
and I have never heard a single word said against 
it. I have never read an article in any newspaper 
against it. I have never heai'd that it was going to , 
make a crisis in the Church. I never heard that , 
the man who held it was not to be elevated to the 
Episcopate. I have seen that it had free scope and | 
fair play, and for my part I would gi^e it ' 
free scope and fair play too. Let this Church 
on this doctrine preserve its equanimity. Let it | 
study. Let it read. Let it pray. Let it think. Let | 
men who have the grace and the gift of understand- ' 
ing pour forth theii' contributions ; and if there are ! 
things that ought not to be said, free thought, free ^ 
play, free consideration, and full consideration 
never harmed the Church in any way ; for, mark 
you, it is a philosophical truth, winch no man 
can read ecclesiastical history without understand- 
ing, that no doctrine, though it be formalized never 
so often, becomes the doctrine of any church until 
that doctrine receives the moral unanimity of its 
members ; and if any one here should be tempted 
either by Rubric or by Article to attempt to take 
away from the doctrine of this Church on the Eu- 
charist, it v/ould only be endeavoring to do some- 
thing which in time to come this Church will rise 
as one man, clerical and lay, and sweep away. 

And now, Mr. President, I want to say one word — 

The PRESIDENT. It wiU be necessary to ask 
for an extension of your time. 

Rev. Dr. DALZELL, of Louisiana. I move that 
fuU time be given to the Clerical Deputy from Wis- 
consin. 

The motion was agreed to unanimously. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. It will be re- 
membered in this House that in the last General 
Convention, under peculiar circumstances, I stated 
a phrase which I hardly need to repeat because it 
has been so often rung in my ears and in the ears of 
others; "that I myself adore, and would, if it were 
necessary or my duty, teach my people to adore, 
Chi'ist present in the elements under the form of 
bread and wine. " I then expressed what was my 
conviction on this subject, but I did not express it 
merely because it was my conviction. The object i 
which I had in expressing it was something which | 
has clearly and evidently been lost sight of. Woe be 
to that man, I say, who in this age of ours attempts 
to force down the throats of Churchmen any par- 
ticular formula upon a given doctrine ! The doctrine 
is eternal ; the words in which we express it may 
change and alter. I only used those words, not be- 
cause they were my conviction, though they were 
so, but because they were words which a court of 
law — the second to the highest in England — had ad- 
judicated, and decided that they were words 
which could be used in the Chm^ch of England, and 
that the man who did use them was not thereby 
liable to penal prosecution. That was simply my 
motive in doing it — to express what a court oi law 
had decided a man might say in om* Church 



in opposition to the very extreme views which 
had been expressed on the other side. Now, I am 
quite conscious that in that phrase — for no one 
could have gone through the series of controver- 
sies in which I have been involved without having 
considered it most carefully — there are two ex- 
pressions which seem to convey to the mind some- 
thing which I did not mean to convey, and many 
people have said that I hold a view Avhich I do not 
hold, and have attributed to me doctrines which 
I do not believe in. 

I take up,fii'st of all, the words. " under the form of 
bread and wine." Let me ask if there are not mem- 
bers in this House who have held that when a man 
says he believes in the presence of Christ in the 
elements imder the foi"m of bread and wine, 
he really means that the form of bread and 
wine remains while the substance is gone 
and another substance has taken its place. 
In other words, I believe there are those in this 
House who think that the words, ' ' imder the form 
of bread and wine, " definitely teach the doctrine of 
transubstantiation, and I am compelled to admit 
that they have been used to express at some time in 
history the doctrine of transubstantiation. I am 
also free to say that the words have been used over 
and over again in the Church of England to ex- 
press not the doctrine of transubstantiation, but 
the doctrine of the real spiritual presence 
of Christ our Lord in sacramental union with 
the consecrated elements. Those words are to be 
found in an advertisement annexed to the fij-st Book 
of Homilies. It says, " Hereafter shall foUow homi- 
lies upon the Ascension, the Nativity, and the right 
receiving the blessed Body and Blood of Christ un- 
der the form of bread and wine."' I know 
people have said that that title has no au- 
thority. I know that they make the statement 
that it was introduced by that extraordinary 
person the King's printer. I know that they also 
correctly add that when the second Book of llomi- 
lies appeared, the homily upon the Lord's Supper 
did not bear that title ; and yet the fact is that the 
Book of Homilies has been twice revised since this 
statement was put in, and it has never been 
altered, and is to this day to be found in the adver- 
tisement annexed to the First Book of Homihes of 
the Church of England. I also must say that 
the words themselves were familiar to our 
reformers because they had been used by Bertram 
or Ratramars in his treatise on the Lord's Supper, 
not in the sense of transubstantiation, but in the 
sense of the real presence. The words occur in a 
formal prayer set out by Queen EUzabeth after the 
Reformation, though they were afterwards di'opped 
from that form in the year 1566. The words are 
to be found in varying senses in books like 
"Nicholson on the Catechism," "Sherlock's 
Practical Christian," "Sutton's Godly Medi- 
tations upon . the most Holy Supper of 
the Lord " ; and in om' day they have been used by 
very many writers. In the famous argument, and 
an argument of unequalled power and eloquence, 
though it was on the wrong side, and though rumor 
says it converted the man who made it to the right 
side — I say that in the argument of Mr. Stephens 
before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Coun- 
cil, he distinctly asserted that the words ' ' under the 
form of bread and wine " may be used to express 
the real presence of Christ in the elements, and that 
they did not necessarily mean or imply the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation. 

But what shall be said of the phrase "in the ele- 
ments " ? It is time that the Bennett formula, as it 
is sometimes called, did not use the words " in the 
elements." It used the words "in the Sacrament." 
So I was accused of having corrupted and perverted 
the Bennett judgment in order to express something 



208 



more strongly than he did. I took the opportunity of 
writing a letter to a gentleman who holds a distin- 
guished position in the Church of England, Mr. 
Walter Phillimore, the son of Sir Robert Philli- 
more, the judge who pronounced the judgment; 
and he wrote back to me that I had quoted 
it exactly; and while it was true that the words " in 
the Sacrament" were the words of Mr. Bennett, for 
the purposes of the legal decision in this case the 
words "in the elements " and the words "in the 
Sacrament " were exactly identical. 

And now, because I said "I believe in the pre- 
sence in the elements," people held that I must be- 
lieve in a local, physical, carnal presence in the ele- 
ments. Let me say that it is impossible 
for me to say in what sense I hold to 
a presence in * the elements. Where Christ 
has not defined, I do not define. Where the Church 
has not defined, I do not define. I merely say neg- 
atively, as the Church has said that it is not by trans- 
substantiation ; that it is not by impanation ; that 
it is not by identity of substance ; and if yoa ask 
me how it is, I answer I Imow of but 
one word to express it, and that word 
expresses it without defining it, and that 
word is the consecrated word "sacramental." 
I hold that Christ is in sacramental union with the 
consecrated elements, and that presence is called 
"real," to show that it is not a mere figurative or 
virtual presence, and the presence is called "spir- 
itual " to show that it is not a physical or carnal or 
corporeal presence. Having made these negative 
definitions, I declare that I hold that Christ has 
ascended into the heavens, and is set down on the 
right hand of the throne of God. I hold 
that around him are the angels and the powers and 
the principalities, the cherubim and seraphim, and 
that the hymn of praise to the Eternal King 
ever ascends ; and I also hold that He is present 
in the elements by this way of sacramental union ; 
and how both are true I can not tell. I belie e the 
one and I believe the other just as I believe in G od's 
predestination and in man's free will, and am neither 
a Calvinist nor an Arminian, because I accept both 
sides of the truth. I hold that Christ is there (point- 
ing to the sky) ; I hold that He is here ; I hold that 
He is there locally ; I hold that He is here si^irit- 
ually. 

Mr. President and gentlemen, I have a great deal 
more to say, but I had no idea that I could be so ver- 
bose ; and now you must be tired to death. [ " Go on ! 
go on ! "] Mr. President, I want to read something, 
and I want to say beforehand that it is not my own, 
so that nobody need quote it against me. [Laugh- 
ter.] These words are (they are in the form of praj-er) : 
"How Thou art in heaven and art present on the 
altar, I can by no means explain ; but I firmly be- 
lieve it all because Thou hast said it ; and I firmly 
rely on Thy love and Thy omnipotence to make 
good Thy word, but the manner of doing it I cannot 
comprehend." 

And those are the words of the saintly Bishop 
Ken, who wrote the morning and the evening hymn 
wMch, for nearly two centuries, have tuned the 
morning prayers and the evening supplications of 
the children of our branch of God's Holy Church. 

Mr. President, I am anxious to read one other 
extract, and I especially read it for the benefit of 
my brethren from Connecticut. I myself belong to 
Connecticut. I was born there and trained there, 
and the man who wrote this Avas the man who cate- 
chised me in my boyhood upon the faith of the 
Church, I love Connecticut with its liills and 
its vales and its blue river, and more than 
that do I love its grand old names and its noble 
history, and I trust that the day is far distant, I 
know the day is far distant, when Connecticut 
Churchmanship shall become the synonym for intol- 



} erance or narrowness, or any sort of unchris- 
: tianlike statesmanship, and the words that I am 
• about to read are the words of Dr. Samuel Farmer 
I Jarvis, one of the most honored Presbyters of this 
Church, the son of Bishop Jarvis, who began that 
apostolical succession of historiographers of the 
Church, which, after resting for awhile upon Dr. 
! Hawks, now in its full glory has fallen upon our 
j distinguished Secretary. I say the words are the 
I words of the Rev. Dr. Samuel Farmer Jarvis, the first 
I historiographer of this Church. They are to be found 
I in a sermon on " Christia.n Unity necessary for the 
j Conversion of the World," a sermon preached be- 
j fore the Bishops, clergy, and laity, of the Board of 
! Missions of the Protestant Episcopal Chm^ch in the 
I year 1836. When the Rev. Doctor preached this 
I sermon, the Bishops and clergy were so delighted 
! with it that they invited him to publish it the next 
j_year with notes, which accordingly he did in the 
year 1837, and so for some thirty-seven years 
this sermon has been before the Church 
and belongs to the Diocese of Connecticut. I want 
to read what this great divine says. After preach- 
ing as he had a good right to do, and as he ought to 
have done, against the errors of Rome, he puts in 
this note : 

" As, on the one hand, we have no right to banish 
from our communion those whose notions of the 
real presence of Christ in the Sacrament rise to a 
mysfcerious change, by which " — 

Mark this language: 
— "by which the very elements themselves, 
though they retain their original properties, are 
corporaUy united with, or transformed into Christ : 
so, on the other, they are not to be excluded who 
consider that real presence a.s altogether spiritual, 
but productive of the same blessed results, namely, 
the privileges of the Gospel resulting from the death 
of Christ." 

And that passage, which is a noce to the sermon, is 
to be found on the twenty -seventh page of this sermon 
on " Christian Unity necessary for the Conversion of 
the World," a sermmi preached before the Bishops 
and clergy and laity constituting the Board of 
Missions. Let me say, my dear brethren, that I 
never in my life said an^^thing as strong 
as that. Whatever I "have said 

does not come at all up to Con- 
necticut churchmanship. [Laughter.] If per- 
chance I have imbibed some feeble idea of that 
which the Reverend Fatherf rom Connecticut taught, 
having been catechised by him when I was a boy, I 
trust that the House will pardon the succession that 
in that respect I have received from him. 

And now hear I people asking the old rationahzing 
question, "How can Christ's body and blood be at 
the right hand of God, and how can it be at the same 
time in the Holy Eucharist ? " and I find them ex- 
plaining it away and saying that it is impossible 
that it can be in the Eucharist, because it is at the 
right hand of God. O Mr. President and gentlemen ! 
I camiot explain mysteries. I do not pretend to do 
so. I can only speak of that which the Holy Scriptm-es 
say. You all remember when our Lord was 
speaking to Nicodemus before his body was glori- 
fied, he said, " No man hath ascended up to heaven, 
but he that came down from heaven, even the 
Son of man which is in heaven." He did not 
say that the Son of God was in heaven. He 
actualLy^ said that the Son of man at that very mo- 
ment when he was talking to Mcodemus was both 
talking to him and in heaven also ; and "the Son 
of man " at that. If you can explain how these 
two things are true, possibly I may be able to ex- 
plain also. 

Let me call your attention also to the very remark- 
able fact of the conversion of St. Paul. Do you not 
remember that when St. Paul was going to Damas- 



20D 



cus he fell to the earth, and a great light s?iined 
around about him, and he said, " Who art thou. 
Lord i' " and the answer was, "I am Jesus, 
whom thou persecutest. " I dare say some 
persons may say he only saw a vision, but 
then we read immediately after that unto Ananias 
the Lord appeared in a vision. So when Ananias 
came to Saul he said that God had chosen him "that 
he should see that Just One and hear the voice of 
His mouth." Atid then we find that self-same St. 
Paul saying, " Am I not an Apostle ( am I not free ? 
Have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ i"' And then 
we find that same Apostle speaMng on the resur- 
rection, saying, He appeared first to James, and then 
to five himdi-ed brethren, ' ' and last of all He was seen 
of me also, as one born out of due time, who am not 
meet to be called an Apostle." And so St. Peter 
says that somehow or other it was necessary to a 
call to the apostleship that the man should see and 
hear the Lord Jesus Christ, because he says, 
in speaking about the election of Mat- 
thias, " One must be chosen to be a luitness 
of the Lord's resurrection,''^ and also to Cornelius, 
tiiat "Him God raised up the third day and 
showed Him openly not to all the people but to wit- 
nesses chosen before of God even to us.'' And 
if any one will explain to me how it was possible 
for our Lord to be in heaven and be seen and heard 
by St. Paul, not in a vision, but actually and really, 
tlien I may be able to explain the mystery of the 
Holy Commvmion. 

Now, I have only a word more to say. My ex- 
planation, which is not an explanation but only the 
bringing forth of a great and true doctrine, is that it 
is the mission of God the Holy Ghost not to supply 
Christ's absence, but to accomplish His presence. I 
Imow thatif people hold that the Holy Ghost 
is God's vicegerent upon earth ; I know that 
people have been bold enough to 
afiirm that Christ is absent personally from this 
world ; that in other words this woi-ld of ours is 
like the sepulchre, and we, like Mary Magdalene, 
are left to cry, " They have taken away my Lord, 
and I know not where they have laid him." It is 
not so. It is, I say, the mission of God the Holy 
Ghost not to supiDly Christ's absence, but to 
accomplish His presence. Blessed are the words 
which say, "It is expedient for you that 
I go away, for if I go not away the Comforter 
will not come to you ; but if I depart I 
will send Him unto you." That seems to 
imply that the Holy Ghost was to take Chiist's 
place; but then when the broken hearts of the 
Apostles seemed to say, "Give not Thou us any 
Comforter; we need no comforter but Thee," 
He I'eplied to their thought, " I go away, and come 
again unto you." "I will not leave you 
comfortless : I will come to you." " Yet a little while 
and ye see me no more ; 'but I will see you again 
and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man 
taketh from you." These words" indeed applied 
first to His return after the resurrection, 
they also apply to that blessed supplying of His 
presence which is the definite work of God the Holy 
Ghost, and which He accomphshes chiefly, though 
not exclusively, in the sacrament of the Etoly Com- 
mimion. 

Mr. President, we live in troublous times, and 
around us are all sorts of terrible questions. It does 
seem to me the day is not now to legislate on nice 
points of doctrine, or to prescribe exactly the 
measure of a genuflexion or the angle of inclina- 
tion which can express an orthodox devotion. The 
answer to all this panic and all this outcry is one, 
and one onl}^. It is work ; work for 
the cause of Christ ; work for the souls of 
men ; a fuller, deeper, more noble sense 
of the obligation of the Church, developing its 



I powers, and sending it forth to mould and form this 

nation of ours, and to give new life and vigor to 
every efl'ort it makes for the salvafion of men. I 
see tiie storm-cloud gathering ; I see the lightnings 
flash ; I hear the thunder roll afar ; I hear the trum- 
pet call ; in my ears the bugle blast is ringing ; and I 
call you, brethren, in a time like this, not to nar- 
row-hearted legislation, but to broad, catholic, 
tolerant charity, and to work, as never men 
worked before, for the souls of those for whom the 
Saviour died. 

I now offer the amendments. I have written them 
out, and I propose that these amendments be re- 
ferred to the Committee on Canons for their consid- 
eration; and that motion includes the proposed sub- 
stitute of Mr. Blanchard, of Maryland. 
The Secretary read the amendments proposed by 
! Rev. Dr. De Koven, of Wisconsin, and Mr. Blan- 
I chard, of Maryland. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I did not under- 
\ stand the Rev. Deputy from Wisconsin as press- 
1 ing for a vote on that motion now. Of course, if a 
I vote be taken, and it be sent to the Committee, it 
would take tbe whole matter from the House. 

The PRESIDENT. Of course the other matter 
would have to be recommitted. 
Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. It is to be acted 
! on when the House comes to a vote, 
i Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Presi- 
dent, and gentlemen of the Convention of the 
1 Lower House : I stand here this afternoon at a very 
I great disadvantage. I come to this debate with 
j your minds already imj^ressed by the elaborate ar- 
gument which you have just heard; your convic- 
tions, certainly your feelings, swayed by the elo- 
quence of the gifted speaker who has preceded me. 
I am not prepared to swear in the words of that 
master, but if any master could carry me to that 
side of the question which he holds, or is reported 
to hold, I know of none more powerful, none 
more attractive. He has spoken to you with a com- 
manding eloquence. I think you will all agree with 
me that we have never been stirred during this ses- 
sion as by his appeal. He has brought to his argu- 
ment a skill which perhaps he will pardon me when 
I say enables him almost, possibly wholly, "to 
make the worse appear the better reason." And 
he has brought a learning, too, which, with- 
out preparation on this floor, and without 
such special preparation as he has evidently 
made, I will not venture to meet. I say this in all 
frankness because I propose to speak truth, which 
possibly may not quite be so palatable by and by. 
i shall "not go directly to the argument of this case — 
I mean to the doctriiial argument in this case. That 
has been put before you with a greater or less ful- 
ness and accurac}^, and I knc^v that other speakers 
will succeed me who will direct themselves especi- 
ally to this point. 

I desire rather to discuss the question in a certain 
broad, general way. But before going on to that I 
wish to make one or two remarks with i-egard to the 
argument which you have just heard. We have in- 
deed listened not to an argument touching the im- 
mediate question before us except in the most 
indirect way. We have listened rather to a learned 
and eloquent exposition of the doctrine of the 
Presence in the Holy Eucharist and of Euchar- 
I istic adoration ; and I take this opportunity to 
' say that I am glad that my reverend brother 
from Wisconsin has been enabled to make 
' the explanation with which his speech has closed. 
I think it will put him on clearer ground and higher 
ground, both in the intellectual esteem and in the 
j hearts of his brethren. I for one give him all credit 
for his words. I believe that not only in gentle- 
' manly courtesy, but by right of Christian author- 
' ity, he can demand of every one of us that we ac- 



210 



cept his words, so far as he is concerned, as conclu- 
sive on this point. 

But, as I have said, I do not propose to address 
myself especially, primarily, chiefly to the doctrinal 
argument involved in this matter. I assume that 
the great proportion of this body is agreed that the 
Church does not hold certain doctrines with regard 
to the Eucharist which I charge, and I think I shall 
be able to show, are held by those among us, and on 
the other side of the Atlantic, who are known dis- 
tinctly as Ritualists. The only point I shall speak 
to is the point touching the expediency of the pre- 
sent action. 

In order, however, to reacli this point, it will be 
necessary to ask your attention to one or two pre- 
liminary matters. The question meets us as we en- 
deavor as a Church to legislate in this matter ; it is 
urged against us with a certain spirit sometimes of 
mockery, " What do you mean by a Ritualist ? What 
is Ritualism ?" This certainly, as we all know, 
is a most unfortunate word, and I do 
not propose this afternoon any definition 
of what is Ritualism, for, as I shall endeavor pres- 
ently to show, the peril of the thing is its very 
vagueness; but I propose to answer this question — 
I think 1 can answer it — " What do you mean, what 
does the great majority of the men and women 
of the Church mean, by Ritualism ? " I know the 
term has been defined, or attempted to be 
defined, after this fashion. A clerical wit 
on this side of the water has told us that Ritualism is 
that to which we are not accustomed. Mr. Glad- 
stone has given the same definition, in almost the 
same words, on the othier side of the Atlantic. The 
trouble is, however, and the secret of the 
power of this system is, that it is so 
vague, so undefined, and so undefinable. 
If it were well defined, if we could put it within 
sharp limits, then it would be easy at once to frame 
a Canon and to bring this thing' to justice ; but I 
can tell you that it is the very vagueness of the 
thing that makes it so hard to deal with, and it is 
this very vagueness which renders it so dangerous. 

But, sir, if I cannot tell you in any clear, brief, 
succinct statement what Ritualism is, I think I can 
tell you, as I have promised, what we mean by 
Ritualism. There is no question among 
us that the Church has given large liberty 
to her children in this matter of 
ritual. As in regard to her doctrine so in her 
Ritual she allows for divergencies of temperament, 
and enables her children, so long as they do not in- 
fringe her doctrine or her law, to be gratified in 
those particulars. I believe that there is a large 
range allowed between the bald on the one side and 
the ornate on the other. I believe that this is a 
necessity in the y^ry nature of things. I be- 
lieve that G/)d put these varieties of tempera- 
ment into men, and I believe that the Church 
but responds (stands over and against) to this ar- 
rangement, this creation, this adaptation of God, 
when she allows to men ha ving these different tem- 
peraments, variety in regard to Ritual. But as in 
doctrine she allows no opinion which touches vi- 
tal truth, concerning which she has decided it, so she 
opposes the self -same limitation in regard to Ritual, 
and it is very important in this matter. 

I maintain that the Ritual beaching of the Church 
is in many respects its strongest teaching. If no 
other particulars were brought in this remains, that 
it is a constant teaching ; that it teaches a large mass 
of persons who perhaps could not take hold intellect- 
ually of simple doctrinal statements. It brings them 
phj^sically, so to speak, into the possession of doctrine, 
and it does so constantly. 

Then, remember. Ritualism so-called is not now, 
as at first, a matter of taste or of simple elaborate- 
ness or ornateness in Ritual observance. It is 



now confessedly and distinctly a system of doc- 
trine. We can all remember the budding of the 
system. That tiny flower was innocent, and they 
perhaps thought it so at the time; but 
we have seen how it has gone on day 
by day, and year by year, until at 
length it disclosed its crimson bosom, and is now 
exhaling poison, as I believe, throughout the 
Church. This is a part of its danger. It is the 
policy of this system in the Church to advance 
gradually and stealthily to its object, in support 
of that point I wish to lead the following extract 
from an authoi'ity on this subject. The process is 
thus recommended : 

"Let a gradual change be broiight in. A Choral 
service, so far as Psalms and Canticles are con- 
cerned, on some week-day evening, will train people 
to like a more ornate worship, and that which began 
as an occasional luxury will soon be felt a regular 
want, where there is monthly Communion let 
it be fortnightly, where it is fortnightly let 
it be weekly, where it is weekly let a 
Thursday office be added. Where all this is already 
existing, candlesticks with unlighted candles may 
be introduced ; where these are already found, they 
may be lighted at evensong ; where so much 
is attained, the step to lighting them for 
the Eucharistic ofiice is not a long one. 
Where the black gown is worn in the 
pulpit on Sundays, let it disappear in the week. 
The surplice will soon be preferred, and will oust 
its rival. It is easy for each reader to see that 
some advance, all in the same direction, ca,n be 
made, and that without any offence taken." 

Now observe the point which I malce with this il- 
lustration. I am not at all speaking concerning the 
particulars there referred to. I simply want to 
bring out the policy pursued by this body, not only 
witnessed to by this quotation, but acknowledged 
on all hands, that they are to go on by degrees, as 
we have seen them go on step by step, until they 
reach their end. 

My brethren around me have been looking at the 
title of the book from which I have just read. I 
brought it here for convenience only, and the title 
is " Facts and Testimonies touching Ritualism," by 
Oxoniensis ; and allow me to say, in order possibly 
to satisfy some doubt in the mind of my friend 
from Illinois (Mr. Otis), or to answer some ques- 
tion that may arise, that I have taken in nearly 
every instance the advice of the venerable Dr. 
Routh to one of his scholars, " always verify your 
references." They have been verified. 

Now, I go on and ask what do I mean by Ritual- 
ism. I answer, first of all, symbolism which in- 
volves and teaches false doctrine, whether it be in 
ornaments or in ceremonies. I need not go into 
any specifications of this matter. We all know that 
of the elevation of the elements and the genuflec- 
tions. In order to illustrate this point, allow me 
again to quote from this book. The quotation is 
from the examination before the Ritual Commis- 
sioners in 1867. The questions are asked by the 
Archbishop of Armagh : 

"Is there any mysterious signification in the 
chasuble, or in wearing it ? That is a question 
which involves doctrine. If I am to be launched 
into doctrine, of course that again will involve an 
immensely long discussion. 

" Do you consider yourself a sacrificing priest ? 
Yes. 

" In fact sacerdos, a sacrificing priest ? Distinctly 
so. 

" What authority have you in the Prayer Book 
for that ? That again would involve a long answer. 



211 



"Then you think you offer a propitiatory sacri- 
fice ? Yes, I think I do offer a propitiatory saci'i- 
fice." 

Now I say that hei-e in this kind of Ritual we 
have certain acts which involve distinctly and in- 
evitably tloctrine. It lias been said, for example, 
that the symbolism of incense does not involve doc- 
tiine ; we have been told that it implies simply 
the ascending and the offering of prayer. If we 
read one of the great authorities on the sub- 
ject of Ritual, a work entitled the "Ritual Rea- 
son Why," we have this distinct answer — I 
do not vouch for the correctness of the 
answer, observe — "We very often use in- 
cense because we intend to signify and offer sacri- 
fice." My reverend brother from' Wisconsin may 
not hold that view; of course if he says so he does 
not hold it ; I am spealdng of the system, and I am 
speaking of the large number of men who hold 
that view. It is true they differ. They differ 
from the writers of the Old Testament that have 
been quoted. Then the simple answer is, so much 
the worse for the writers of the Old Testament ! 

What I mean by Ritualism is, again, where we 
have a correct and positive teaching, whether from 
the pulpit or in books, concerning Ritual and con- 
cerning RituaMstic devotion. Nay, Mr. President, 
I go further than this. I maintain that Ritualism is 
to be thwarted because it involves the adoption of a 
di'ess and ceremonial which has come to be regarded 
as the livery of the Church of Rome. I know the 
sneer which this brings out continually. If any- 
thing is essential to the truth, then I maintain 
that we are to hold it and to defend it against all 
the world ; but certainly these things are not essen- 
tial to the truth, and therefore being not essential 
I maintain that we have a right to consider the ef- 
fect which they will have upon those of our 
Church who are using these forms of wor- 
ship. The Roman Ritual is the true expres- 
sion of Roman doctrine. If I believed, 
as the Romanist does, that Christ was corporeally 
present on the altar, locally there, then I hold that 
everything that can give grandeur and beauty, all 
physical expressions witnessing to a physical fact, 
are allowable, and not only allowable, but that they 
are within our bounden duty to provide and to ob- 
seiwe. But this Ritual system, as I might again 
show from this work from the hands of 
a Ritualist in England, borrowed, and admittedly 
borrowed, from the Church of Rome in many 
of its ornaments and many of its ceremonies, 
means nothing with us, and can mean nothing with 
us, unless it means Roman doctrine. In other 
words, I maintain the one system is consistent in all 
its parts, and I maintain that the other is inconsist- 
ent unless you hold the doctrine in the latter which 
is held in the former. You say that all this is not 
Roman but Catholic. I deny it "if the rule and test 
of Catholicity is the Canon of Vincent of Lerins. 

But, Mr. President, what is the simple, natural 
effect of all this ? I maintain it is to damage the 
Church and to bar its progress. I pass on, how- 
ever, to consider certain objections which are made 
to any attempt to interfere with this new heresy 
in the Church. It is often said, "Let it alone; it 
will die out itself; do not agitate the Church.'' 
Very well, it is worth while to ask, in the first 
place, by whom this is said. I answer, first, by those 
clergymen and laymen who from their position 
are not brought directly into contact with the sys- 
tem, and know it only by mere rumor or hearsay. 
This is ah honest objection, and I can understand it. 
I can understand how a large number of our clergy, 
scattered through the country, for the most part in 
humble parishes where simple tastes prevail, are 
uninformed concerning this Ritualism, and why 
they do not fear it. They suppose that it is simply, 



j as I have said, some mere matter of taste, some- 
j thing which belongs by natuial light as well as 
; ecclesiastical right to the individual, and therefore 
i they do not see any necessity for legislation ; but, 
j dear brethren, the clergy in our large cities know 
j that it is something more than mere taste. The 
{ clergy not infected with this doctrine here in the 
I city of N e w York and in my own city of Phila delphia 
know that Ritualism is something more thania matter 
of mere taste. They know that it is in their parishes ; 
that it breaks down their infiuence, that it thwarts 
their teaching, which they have all along believed to 
be the simple teaching of the Church. They know that 
it endeavors to draw away theii- children. They 
know it endeavors to bring their communicants out 
of the confines of their own parish to confession and 
to the recei^tion of absolution in parishes to which 
they do not belong. Therefore, while this objection 
is an honest one, I do maintain that it is a mistaken 
one ; and if there are any members of this House 
unwilling to touch this measure of legislation be- 
cause they hold it is not worth while to interfere 
with Ritualism, then I tell them they are making a. 
mistake, because they are not properly informed. 
But this cry of "Let it alone ; do not agitate the 
Church " is said also by Ritualists themselves and 
j those in sympathy with them. If any member of this 
Convention should go to his home and find it 
broken into, the incendiarj^, the robber, the mur 
derer, entering into his chosen places, imperilling his 
family, what would he say ? How much a,ttention 
would he give to them if the robbers and the incen- 
diaries were to cry, "Do not agitate the family ; do 
not disturb the household" ? 

But it is further worth while to ask, How long are 
we to let this Ritualism alone? Has Ritualism died 
out imder being let alone ? I know that it 
has not largely multiplied its churches in this 
country; but in the first place, as I have just 
said, it has spread its influence into parishes, 
creating disturbance and unrest, defying 
rectors and defying Bishops. In the next place it 
silently distributes and scatters abroad its poisonous 
literature. We aU Imow, I suppose, the character 
of that literature. AUow me to read one or two 
passages in regard to it, taken from a work entitled 
" The Invocation of Saints and Angels," edited by 
Rev. Orby Shipley, a man weU known among 
Ritualists. Here we find these words : 

"Blessed Mary, Mother of God, Ever- Virgin, 
through whose fulfilment of all righteousness thy 
Divine Son was circumcised, and became obedient 
to the Lavv^ for man — Pray for us. " 
• I supposed the fulfilment of all righteousness 
belonged only to Christ ; I have always been 
taught that that was His atti'ibute ; and yet 
here, under the teachiug of this system which 
comes into my parish and defies all my efforts, 
are prayers not only addressed to " Blessed Mary, 
Mother of God, E ver-V irgin, " but I have this 
doctrine taught, that she also fulfilled aU right- 
eousness. That is one single illustration. Take 
another : 

" Grant, O Lord God, we beseech Thee, that we Thy 
servants may enjoy continual health of mind 
and body ; and by the glorious intercession of 
Blessed Mary, Ever-Virgin, may be delivered from 
present sorrows and have the fountain of everlasting 
joy." 

I ask you, is this the doctrine which we are pre- 
pared to receive into the Church ? Are we to' be 
met with the argument "Let it alone ; do not stop 
it " ? Sol might go on with an endless number of 
quotations gathered in this work, which Vv^ould show 
the character of the literature which this system, 
though there be not one single member of this 
Convention attached to it, having its agents all 
around us, is endeavoring to propagate in the Church. 



212 



At allj events remember — since the declaration of 
my brother from Wisconsin I almost feel inclined 
t<^ leave out the words, but I utter them for what 
they are worth, inasmuch as others were concerned 
beMnd him and perhaps misunderstood him — doubt- 
less did misunderstand him as I have misunderstood 
him — this thing- which we call Ritualism, which is 
not to be stopped, has grown sti'onger and so in- 
creased as almost to have obtained possession of two 
Dioceses m the Church. 

But we ai'e met with another objection. It is now 
the popular cry, we hear it on every side, " Tolera- 
tion, Toleration." Truly this is a good thing, and, 
let it be confessed, not too common. I believe in tol- 
eration as much as any man. It is a good thing, I 
say, though it comes from strange lips and from 
strange quarters. The men who have 
been marked as most intolerant in 
the Church, now when their hour of 
trial comes, raise this cry of "toleration." But I 
ask you to consider what is this thing which we call 
toleration ?" Toleration, like hberty itself, implies 
limitation. It is a question, after all, of limits. To 
attempt to put a limit to certain things is not to be 
intolerant in regard to them. Unlimited toleration, 
on the other hand, is the offspring of indiffer- 
ence and the mother of lawlessness. These men may 
talk now about toleration and peace, but we know 
the meaning of the words and the fact. It is to 
break down the waUs of our Zion ; it is to spread 
ruin on every side ; it is to continue, while we have 
no legislation, strife and trouble. Solitudinum 
faciunt pacem appellant. 

But it is said, again, we cannot legislate in this 
matter by Canon, This is the great argument. We 
have heard it urged by my reverend brother from 
Louisiana. We have heard it accepted by my reve- 
rend brother the Deputy from Alabama, who 
Has brought the Canon into this House. I 
ask you, then, to consider this position in 
itself, that this Church cannot legislate 
concerning this matter by Canon. We cannot, it is 
true, change, add to, or take from the Prayer-Book 
or its Rubrics by Caiion ; but I do maintain that we 
can interpret and define, we can say what the Ru- 
brics or the Prayers mean, and where their limi- 
tations are to come in. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Rev. Dr. Burgess, 
of Massachusetts, in the chair). The gentleman's 
time has expired. ["Go on !" "Go on !"] It is 
moved that the Deputy from Pennsylvania have 
leave to proceed without reference to time. 

Leave was granted. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Per-* 
mit me, sir, to use an illustration in sup- 
port of this view. As we all know, the last 
General Convention in the Upper House put 
forth in a Pastoral a declaration on the doctrine of 
the Ba]3tismal Office. ] n other words, they did not 
add to the faitli of the Church, but they did, as they 
had a right to do, define that faith ; and I maintain if 
it was in the power of that Upper House, as I hold 
it was. thus in fact to legislate in this 
sense of the word "legislation," concerning doc- 
trine, a fortiori, the whole General Convention has a 
right to define the Church's Rubrics in regard to 
this matter of Ritual. The Reverend Deputy from 
Alabama has told us that the only authority that can 
speak in this matter is the apostolic body ; that the 
Bishops are the persons to speak ; that we have not 
had and can have no authority, I believe that 
I have read somewhere of a primitive prac- 
tice, "the apostles and brethren." But, after 
all, what does this objection really amount 
to ? I ask you to observe the position, and what 
it really is. It comes to this : The General Con- 
vention has no power by Canon to forbid these 
hlngs manifestly ^and confessedly above and be- 



yond the Rubrics ; but any single rector on his own 
individual motion has a right to use any or all of them 
i as he pleases. But it is said you cannot legislate autho- 
j ritatively. Doubtless, if a man chooses to evade the 
I law, he can evade the law". I might read from this 
paper, did I not wish to spare the attention of 
the House, how from the lips of a Ritualist it 
can be shown how the law can be evaded. Any man 
can evade the law if he pleases, and yet there is an 
advantage of legislation, and there are many ad- 
vantages. In the first place, this clear putting 
forth of the law rallies all loyal subjects and 
citizens. In the next place, it puts dis- 
loyalty at an open public disadvantage. When men 
enter upon these practices which teach, as we believe, 
false doctrine in the Church, and when they tell us,, 
as we have heard to-day, that there is no definition, 
and therefore they are at liberty to do just as they 
please, and we meet them by this legislation, I say 
it puts them at once at disadvantage. In the 
third place, it rids tiiis Church of ours of 
odium and responsibility. If, after it has declared 
itself, the individual members, whether clergy or 
laymen, choose to go on in their waj^s, then they 
stand rebels ; the Church at least is free from the 
odium of tlieii- conduct. In the next place, it gives 
to the Bishops the necessary authority. And lastly, 
it gives to the rectors, and" that is wlaat I want, a 
clear line of action before them and the law behind 
them. 

In almost every parish, in our larger parishes 
certainly, there is a certain restless element, usual- 
ly the young, caught by the glitter of this new 
thing, carried away by the form of eccentricity, 
won by the very newness of it, who are 
for ever endeavoring to force forward their rec- 
tors. It is sometimes urged that this whole 
matter of Ritualism is something to be 
laid at the doors of the clergy. It is to be laid in 
many cases at the doors of this little, restless, dis- 
loyal, turbulant, defiant faction. Just as they will 
plead for a Bishop provided their Bishop obeys, so 
they will stand by their rector provided the rector 
yields to their demands. If he does not, then cer- 
ta'inlj^ he will find trouble. Now, sir, I want this 
legislation for the sake of the rectors. 

Lastly, w-e are threatened with the civil courts. 
There is a great deal that might be said on this mat- 
ter looking at it from a simple legal aspect, but I 
have exhausted the patience of the House, and I will 
simply make this remark: The Cliurch, I think, 
will take that risk. 

Now, sir, I have done. I proposed to read some 
passages illustrative of the following remark, but I 
forbear. I for one am not ashamed to be called a Pro- 
testant, I am a Protestant because first of all I am a 
Catholic. Just as the germ of primitive doctrine 
was expanded in its expression to meet on this side 
and on that side the heretics of the early 
age, so out of this term " catholic " comes in this 
modern age as against Rome the necessity of 
this term "Protestant," and I repeat it, I am 
Protestant because I am Catholic. I maintain that 
I could not be Catholic if I were not Protestant. 
I am not one of those who sneer at the dark ages, 
when the darkness perhaps is, to a very considerable 
extent at least, in their own ignorance. I am 
willing to admit all the good that was done 
by the Church, its conservation of letters, its care 
of the poor, standing betv^een the nobles of the 
feudal system and those whom they endeavored to 
grind under their feet ; but, sir, I am also not one of 
those lauclatores temporis actis who are led to trust 
simply and solely in the past, and to deny the good of 
the present. Yes, sir, I am Catholic and I am Protest- 
ant. I love this free air around us ; I k low what this 
liberal mind has done ; and I am oppoi ed to Ritual- 
ism becausel conscientiously believe 1 hat this sys- 



tern— I am not sponldng- of individuals, God forbid 
—but this system, it is a fact, and it cannot be de- 
nied to be a fact, tends to carry us back, not to any 
possible good in the past, but to its false doc trine, 
to its l.'ad ritual, and to its bad morals. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. It is with a great 
deal of diffidence that I bring myself to say a word 
on the subject, especially' after following gentlemen 
of such eloquence and distinction. But believing, 
as I do, that this question is, of all questions that 
come before this House, peculiarly a question for 
the hnty, I ask permission to say a few words on 
the subject. 

I shall most heartily vote for this Canon as re- 
ported by the Committee in its present shape, al- 
though, as I indicated by a question I asked of the 
clerical gentleman from Alabama, I think it ought 
to be amended ; but if the amendment is not 
submitted — and I shaR not move it — I will 
most heartily vote for the Canon as repoi-ted. 
Why do I say this ? I must confess that 
it does not contain much which I hoped 
it might contain, and which I hoped the experience 
of the past few years would have caused the inser- 
tion of; but as a friend of mine said to me a short 
time ago, "At least, it squints in the right direc- 
tion, and do not lose the whole by demanding too 
much at once." I heartily respond to this; but still 
I would much prefer that this Committee, if it were 
recommitted to them, would at least make to 
the laity one small concession. In the 
second section, instead of reading as it now does : 
' ' Or on complahit made to him, in writing, by two 
or more of his Presbyters," it would just dropout 
those last words, so as to read, ' ' If any Bishop have 
reason to believe," etc. With that we should be con- 
tent. I hope, at least, that such will be granted to 
the laity. 

Now, if the reverend gentleman from Wisconsin 
were to guide the discussion, probably he would 
maintain that I was no proper person, according to 
my doctrines, to be a member of this Church, and that 
I should not be allowed to be here even as a layman. 
This Convention will probably be surprised when I 
avow myself here a Ritualist to all mtents and pur- 
poses; a E,itualist of a certain sort, and only of a 
certain sort — a Ritualist who would stand by the 
Prayer-Book — for this reason above every other 
reason: that this Ritual has stood so long and so 
sturdily, and our Church is so adapted to it, that 
it is the Ritual of the Church which brings me more 
closely to it. 

But what is it that the gentlemen claim as Ritual ^ 
^ Is it in truth and fact so ? It is not something that 
the Prayer-Book calls so ; it is not something that 
we, the common people, understand. Is it not di- 
rectly in the teeth of our Twenty-fourth Article of 
Religion ? That Article is very short, and I will 
read it : 

"Article XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congrega- 
tion in such a Tongue as the people understandeth. 

" It is a thing pjlainly repugnant to the Word of 
God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to 
have public prayer in the Church, or to minister 
the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of 
the people." 

My objection to this thing, characterized as Ritual, 
is that it is preaching the Gospel, and everything that 
should be done in a plain tongue, in an unknown 
tongue to the people. We have been told, and most 
forcibly, that they teach to the young, to the igno- 
rant, to the body of the people, more effectively by 
their acts than by their words. Mr. President, it is 
said God gave us the Gospel, but the father of lies 
gave us theology. [Laughter.] This, to all intents 
and purposes, is a question of theologj^ It is ad- 
mitted by every one who has spoken to be a ques- 
tion of theology. Recollect, then, God being the 



author of the Gospel, theology relies on the father 
of lies. I do nol; mean to say that theol- 
osj is a system of lies. God forbid that 
1 should have any such notion as that— I mean false 
theology. What I say is, that take any system of 
theology, and how easy it is for any 
Presbyter or Deacon, as things now stand 
in this Church, to preach falsehood without control ! 
I am perfectly willing on this and almost every 
other subject to leave the matter either to the House 
of Bishops, or to a committee of the Hoiise of 
Bishops, or to a committee of the common bodj^ of 
the clergy of our Church, not taking the extremes on 
either side, to instruct the people on the subject of 
theology. In other words, if you have a limita- 
tion on all these rites and ceremonies, let 
us take it on the faith either of the Bishops 
or of a committee of the clergy, but let 
us have some guarantee from some source, 
not from the individual action of any Presbyter or 
Deacon, that the practices which he uses does not 
symbolize something that is unprovoked, that is 
wrong, but let us be certain that his practices are not 
such as distui-b us, and that they are not so varied 
that when a man accustomed to worship in the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church in one Diocese goes to an- 
other he has to hang his head in shame, for not un ■ 
derstanding the service of his Mother Church 

For these reasons, while the Canon is not perfect, 
and while I would agree to some of the valuable 
suggestions of the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin, I shall vote for it jast as it is, and shall 
offer no amendment. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. Mr. Presi- 
dent and gentlemen of the Convention, the distin- 
guished Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin told you 
he believed that he was the only Clerical Ritualist m 
this House. I tell you now that I come before 
you as perhaps the only Lay Ritualist in this 
House, and yet I came to this Convention to 
reuresent the Diocese of Massachusetts. I believe 
I am only here to represent the Church, the Broad 
Church, the High Church, the Low Church,and even 
the Ritualist I am allowed to speak for, and I may 
have been sent here because I think I know some- 
thing about Ritualism. 

Who is it that objects to Ritualism ? Is it the 
New Yorkers ? Where are the Ritualist churches 
in this oountry ? They are here in New York, and 
what do we find here ? We find two hundred gen- 
tlemen of New York praying that you will have no 
legislation on the subject. Sir, I never 
heard that there was any Rituahsm with- 
in a thousand miles of Virginia. I be- 
lieve there may be just one Ritualistic church 
in the whole of Maryland. There is but one so called 
in the whole of New England. There is one, I be- 
lieve, in Philadelphia. I think these are all that 
exist. I do object to this way of combating the 
party, if it be so. I know something about Ritual- 
ism. I have been a worshipper in a 
church called a Ritualistic church for four 
5^ears, and yet I utterly deny that there 
is any such thing as a Ritualistic party. There are 
individuals, and among those who are called Rit- 
ualists there are a great many foolish individuals. 
Sir, I object wholly to the testimony of such a man 
as the Rev. Orby Shipley being brought here to 
represent the views of a party. He is a dilettante ; 
he is no fixed clergyman of any cure. He amuses 
himself with translating Romish books of devotion, 
and making utterances of that sort to frighten 
people ; but he represents no one. 

I tell you I know something about Ritualism. 
I am a member of a free church, and have 
been for some years. That church was vacant 
four years' ago, and, being Senior Warden 
and the Chairman of the Committee, it be- 

•' 



214 



came my duty to enquire how I should find 
such a clergyman as would go on and preach the 
Gospel to the poor most effectually. It was not a 
church for rich men; it was a church for poor 
men. I wanted a clergyman who would go into 
the highways and byways of the city, into the 
houses of the poor, and carry the Gospel directly 
to them. Being in England, I was there 
at the time of the English Mission, and 
I enquired into this mission, and who started it. 
They had been spoken of as the brothers of St. John 
the Evangelist ; the Cowley Fathers they are some- 
times called. This is an association for preaching 
the Gospel to the poor. They have two objects. 
One is an object of missions, which is a sort of 
Methodist revival, if you please. This is a thing 
which has been done in the Roman Cathohc Church, 
which has been done in the Methodist 
Church, which has been done in the 
Congregational Church. It is a setting apart a sea- 
son of three, eight, or ten days, in which there are 
to be frequent services, great prayer, one or two 
sermons every day, where the congregation are in- 
vited to go for their own spiritual welfare and to 
pray for sinners. The object is to convert people. 
Conversion is a cardinal doctrine with some of 
these Ritualists. 

I know a great many people are afraid of the 
doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and sav tJiat 
High-Churchmen do not hold to conversion." Per- 
haps the old High-Churchmen do not, but I teU you 
these Ritualists do. There is my lay brother from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Welsh). He knows I have a de- 
sign on him, and that is a design to, put him into a 
retreat, and when we get liim into a retreat and 
keep him there four or five days, and let him see no 
one of the world, keep out every newspaper and 
letter from him, and make him give his whole 
heart and soul to devotion to God, I do not think 
he will exactly like it. It is a pretty hard thing for 
him, but what shall we say to him ? Convert him • 
he will be better hereafter. , Will he say that he 
Avould convert me ? He would not say that, for he 
is a modest man, but we all know him. I take 
him as an extreme instance. Who in this Church 
has been more faithful to preaching the Gospel to 
the poor ? Who has been more zealous for the poor 
Indian than he ? Who has been more abounding 
in good works ? We will get him in this retreat, 
and put a question of this sort to him : How many 
of those people who built Noah's ark afterwards 
got into it and were saved ? And, I tell him, we 
trust in his works, and therefore we will try to con- 
vert him again. [Laughter. ] 

That is the doctrine we preach to high and low, 
• rich and poor, and that is^ one of the reasons why 
Ritualism is so very unpopular. Sir, in the church 
to which I belong people come and say, "Yes, we 
like your good service, but we do not like your hell- 
fii-e preaching. " [Laughter. ] That is exactly what 
they say. Many years ago we had a Calvinist con- 
gregation where the highest Calvinism was preached, 
and it was always known and s]:>oken of as Brimstone 
Corner. There came from Sicily a cargo of brim- 
stone to Boston, and the supercargo found it very 
difficult to dispose of that cargo. He asked here, 
and he asked there, till finally one man said : "Sir. 
there is Dr. Britton who lives in Park Street^ 
he is the largest dealer in brimstone in the whole 
city of Boston ; go to him.'' [Laughter.] The super- 
cargo actually went to him and said: "Sir, lam 
told by your fellow-citizens that you deal more 
largely in brimstone than anybody else in this city, 
and 1 have got a splendid cargo to offer to you." 
Laughter.] He could only say^^ "My poor man, 
how they have fooled you !" '[Laughter.] I hope 
th at we sha 11 get you all to Boston at the next meet- 
in g, and 1 1 hink we will show you a httle Rituahsm, 



I and a little of the changes that have taken 
i place. If a man should come to Boston now 
j with a cargo of brimstone, he could go to the Ritu- 
I alistic CI lurch of the Adv^ent, and offer it, for it is 
I known that those doctrines are most loudly and 
j constantly preached there ; but if a man came on a 
j fast horse he would be very likely to go to the 
minister of that very parish whose predecessor was 
supposed to deal largely in brimstone. 

Now, simply as a layman, I have not come to 
talk about theology ; 1 know nothing about it. I 
only come to you because, as I tell you, when I was 
in search of a clergyman for this parish, I deter- 
mined to take the medicine myself. I am a medical 
man, and therefore when I prescribe to patients I 
am expected to know something personally about 
the sort of medicine I give them, and I subjected 
myself to their teaching, and having studied the 
subject thoroiighlj^, having sent another member 
of our corporation, a man well known, Hon. Rich- 
ard H. Denny, Jr., to England, to look into the sub- 
ject also, we put our parish under the Cowley 
Fathers, and finally we chose Father Grafton as the 
rector, and I can tell you we have never repented 
the choice. Never was our work so fuUy carried 
out of getting hold of poor people, and we find in 
that the advantage of Ritualism. 

One reason why my brethren from the country 
parishes are so much afraid of this Ritualism is that 
they do not understand the needs of the cities. It 
is in the cities where the crime and ignorance and 
folly of the country are collected. We have to deal 
with the young men who have left the parental home 
— who have lost all the reverence of childhood — 
who have no one to advise them. We have 
young women who are collected in shops, 
workwomen with no mothers, no father to go to, 
no home. They live in boarding-houses. We can 
get hold of these through the instrumentality of 
Ritualism. 

And then I want to bring forward another 
dreadful subject — that of confession. it 
seems to me as if every member of this 
House expected that these dreadful Ritual- 
ists were going to drive him to the confessional. 
Many years ago I went to see a patient, and she said 
to me, ' ' Why, doctor, I have had a visit from my 
clergyman." "Indeed," said I, " is that so rare ? " 
' ' Yes, " said she, ' ' I have not seen him for two years. " 
"Well," said I, "you go to hear him preach?'' 
"Yes, every Sunday." "Well," said I, "why do 
you not treat me in the same way ? 1 give 
lectures on pathology. It is my vocation. Why do 
you not come to hear me preach on pathology ? 
Every time you have a headache or pain in your 
stomach, why do you not come and hear me lecture 
on that subject ?" [Laughter.] Gentlemen, we 
do not deprecate preaching. It is 
a very important element with us, 
but we do not find it enough. We 
are going to have a mission in Boston this next week, 
and we shaJl have one of the ablest preachers of 
England to preach for us, and we attach a great 
deal of importance to preaching, but it is not all. 
We must get hold of the individuals, and 
we must establish such relations with them as will 
enable them to come to some competent per- 
son to tell their trials, to tell their temptations, to 
ask for counsel, to ask for assistance. Take these 
poor girls that I have spoken of. W e have a sister- 
hood which came from England — the Sisters of East 
Brinsley. They have established a house. 

In our Church we are a little careful not to keep 
our clergymen too high generally, but let them feel 
a little the burden of a wife and children. Having 
no clergyman's wife in our case, the mother of this 
sisterhood comes in and offers herself. She collects 
them in a Guild, and offers prayers and teach- 



215 



es them. My brother from Massachusetts 
can tell you how much we can teach 
by Ritual. We do a great deal of teaching by 
Ritual and teaching by kindness. We have not a 
consecrated building, and we worship in that very 
building where the distinguished preacher of 
Brookl>T.i, Henry Ward Beecher, was brought 
up. We worship in the building that was built for 
his father ; and his father won a name in Boston 
which carried the war against Unitarianism that 
prevailed there. He had a great deal of influence, 
and made a great many conversions ; and now we 
hope that in this very building built for him, when 
we have our mission there, we shall have a great 
many more conversions. 

Yon speak of confession. I never confessed. 
Nobodj- likes to confess in a Ritualistic church. 
They tell to any man, " If you really have a beset- 
ting sin ; if you are really weary, and the dangers 
of the city in these days are very great, 
come to us." The dangers for young people, 
for young women and young men, in cities 
are very great to those who live there without their 
parents, without relations, without friends to take 
care of them. They must have some friend to 
whom they can go— to whom they may explain ; 
and those are the people whom we encourage to 
go to Confession, for something of the same reason 
that it is said about the Indians — this I 
read in a book about the Indians. It was found 
necessary to have some confession, because they 
were like children or young people. Confession is 
not so necessary for the educated and the refined, 
for those who live exempted from temptation ; 
but take a young man or young woman, and 
put that young man or young woman fresh from 
the country into the city, and you expose them to 
all the perils and errors which "are about there, and 
confession is a very valuable means for those. Con- 
fession we have in common with the Methodists. I 
know very well, gentlemen, that this distinction 
was once drawn by the Bishop of New Bruns- 
wick, who was travelling in a steamboat. 
There was a Methodist minister who was very 
anxious to get hold of him, because he said he had 
heard that confession was practised as much in the 
Methodist Church as it was in the Roman Catholic, 
and, finally, he went to him and said : " You 
have been charging us with confession being pre- 
valent in the Methodist Church as well as 
the Roman Catholic Church. What do 
you mean by it ?" "Well," said he, "I make a dis- 
tinction." "Well," said the clergyman, "what is 
it ?" " Why," said he, " Roman Catholics are moi'e 
fond of confessing their faults, and the Methodists 
are more fond of confessing their virtues. [Laugh- 
ter.] You know exactly how that is conducted in 
the Methodist Church. You know, too, in regard to 
the Congregationalists, that when revival meetings 
are held by the Congregationalists— for I was brought 
up in that way — it was not enough to have the 
preaching, but that Conference meetings and pri- 
vate meetings were held, and they endeavored to 
bring all the people into personal communication. 
The difiiculty with the Methodists' communion is 
that they do not keep them steady enough. The 
abuses of revivals in their system are matters 
which we try to guard against. 

Now, having a parish of that sort, when people 
come to church, we endeavor to make the service as 
beautiful to them as we can. They have very little 
that is beautiful in their own homes. The mere 
poor have nothing. We have what we call the 
Lord's table. Now, I maintain that we have a great 
deal in this Canon about the respect paid 
to the Lord's table. Why should it not be respect- 
ed ? It is said of Bishop Butler that he never pass- 
ed a church without taking off his hat, because he 



said the Lord is there ; it is the Lord's house. 
Are you going to tell us that when we spread the 
Lord's table, and invite the peoi)le there, the rich 
man may fill his table with lights and flowers, and 
with the most beautiful silver he can get, aud put 
his sei'vants in handsome clothes, and dress them all, 
and when these poor people come to the Lord's table, 
that is not to be ornam.ented ? 

When we do these things we do not mean any 
transubstantiation or consubstantiation ; we mean 
reverence, and reverence is a hard thing for us Pu- 
ritans in the North. It may be easier for my friends 
in Virginia and Maryland, in a warmer climate, 
to be reverent ; but take any one of the old Ply- 
mouth Rock hard Puritan nature, and I tell you it is 
a very hard thing to teach him reverence, and 
we need these things to impress reverence. We are 
taught to reverence the Lord's house ; we are 
taught to behave well in the Lord's house ; 
we are taught simply to reverence the Lord's table, 
and if we put flowers on the table, and if we put 
lights on the table, we do not mean any system 
alien to the Church. As I said on another occasion 
to my venerable friend. Dr. Mead, the doctrine 
which is taught in our Church is precisely the doc- 
trine which came from Connecticut, which came 
from our first rector. We have no new Eucharistic 
doctrine ; we have tried to inculcate more reverence, 
for we are getting in people out of the Church, we 
are getting in young men and young women, and 
we are endeavoring to teach them in that way how 
to behave when they come into the Lord's house. 

There is a doctrine of some sort of presence iu 
the Church, but there are many people in the 
Church who do not believe in any sort of presence. 
There are people who are still intent on thinking 
there may be such a matter as superstitious rever- 
ence for holy places. I have heard it is the prac- 
tice of clergymen in some places before they go up 
to the pulpit to put their outer garments 
on the Lord's table simply to show that 
they have no superstitious reverence for that table. 
Now I would not for the world have any Canon to 
force them to do otherwise. It may be their hon- 
est belief and their honest conviction. They are 
trying to express the truth. There is a danger. 
Nobody can deny that in Mexico, that in 
Italy, that in Roman Catholic countries, 
there is a great deal of superstitious rev- 
erence; but what I maintain in our country, 
in our own day, in our own generation, is that there 
isruo danger of too much reverence in this America 
Church, and what we mean by this bowing to the 
Lord's table, by being reverent in the Lord's house, 
is simply to try to impress upon ourselves that there 
is a Lord who created us, and that He is a reality, 
and that He is something to us. 

The PRESIDENT. The time has arrived for ad- 
journment, and the House stands adjourned till to- 
morrow at nine o'clock. 



EIGHTEENTH DAY. 

Tuesday, October 27. 

The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
nine a.m. 

Mornmg Prayer was said to the Creed by Rev. 
Edwin E. Johnson, of Connecticut. The Creed and 
Prayers were said by Rev. George Worthingtou, of 
Michigan. The Benediction was pronounced by the 
Right Rev. William Bacon Stevens, d.d., ll.d.. 
Bishop of Pennsylvania. 

The minutes of yesterday's jjroceedings were read 
and approved. 

PLACE OF NEXT MEETING. 

A message (No. 46) from the House of Bishoi^ 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 



216 



Resolved, That this House concurs in Message 
No. 33 of the House of Deputies as to fixing a place 
for the next General Convention, and names as the 
Committee on its part the Bishop of New York, the 
Bishop of Central Pennsylvania, and the Bishop of 
Massachusetts." 

PAPERS IN REGARD TO DR. SEYMOUR. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. There is a ques- 
tion of privilege that I would ask a moment in re- 
gard to. I have been asked to give copies of certain 
letters that were read Vv^hilst we were considering 
the confirmation of the Bishop-elect of Illinois. I 
have them here, but, as I gave notice at the time, 
they are retained by me. If the House is wilhng to 
pass a resolution requesting the Secretary to give 
me copies of certain other papers, I will hand them 
over to the House to let it do just what it pleases 
with them. I move that the Secretary be author- 
ized to give to a Lay Deputy from Pennsylvania 
copies of certain papers in his possession. Then 1 
will instantly, if that passes, hand over all these 
papers to the custody of the House, in order that it 
may do with them jiist what it lists. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
suggest that the Deputy who asked for the delivery 
up to him of certain papers [Rev. Dr. StringfellowJ 
is not present ; and let this be deferred until he is 
present and able to speak on the subject. 

Mr. "WELSH, of Pennsylvania. He did not make 
the request for these papers ; it came from another 
Deputy, belonging to this House, who is exceeding 
anxious to get them, in order that he may furnish 
Professor Seymour with a copy. I am not willing 
to part with them in any other way than the way 
indicated. There are other parties in interest. 
These papers really belong to three or four persons. 
I have obtained their consent to give them to the 
House on this condition and no other. My motion 
is that the Secretary be authorized to furnish a Lay 
Deputy from Pennsylvania with copies of certain 
papers in his possession. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. It strikes me 
that the motion, if carried, will defeat, in great 
part, the object of the secret session, which was for 
the very purpose of keeping our consultations away 
from the public. If these papers be given up, it 
would lead to a long newspaper correspondence, in 
all probability, which would not lead to edification. 
The papers belong to the House, as it seems to me, 
and ought to be retained by the House. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. In reference to the 
papers in the hands of the Deputy from Pennsylva- 
nia, I would say that I believe it is an act of injus- 
tice to the gentleman indicated implicated in these 
papers ; that he should have a copy of them ; and I 
do not think any consideration for the public ought 
to restrain us from doing that act of eminent justice 
to that gentleman ; and I hope there will be no ob- 
jection intei-posed by anybody in the way of putting 
those papers in such a position that the Secretary 
may, by the general consent of the House, without 
putting a formal motion, be permitted to give the 
gentleman copies. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. That is all I 
ask; and I recognize in this gentleman a friend of 
Professor Seymour, and the very Deputy who made 
the ajjpeal to me last evening. I think the House 
will all agree that he ought to have them ; but I am 
not authorised to give them up except on these con- 
ditions. If it is understood by general consent that 
the Secretary has that authority and will I'ecognize 
it, I ask for nothing else. 

Rev. Dr. CHASE, of Illinois. This to me is a sin- 
gular relation. I thinlc we ought not to act in this 
matter until the Rev. Dr. String-fellow is present. 
I understood him to move for an order of the House 
instructing the Secretary to return to him papers 



which he had laid on the desk, not for the purpose 
of passing them into the possession of this House, 
but simply to enable individuals who might 
wish to examine them to go to the Sec- 
retary's desk and there examine them. 
The Lay Deputy from Pennsylvania has papers on 
the other side which he keeps in his pocket and re- 
fuses to deliver into the possession of the House, 
Therefore I think his motion is perfectly correct and 
an orderly one ; but I wish the whole relation to be 
distinctly understood, whether there are certain 
papers on one side that are kept in the pockets of 
those who used them, and papers on the other side 
which were simply laid on the Secretary's desk, are 
declared to be the property of the Plouse. So far as 
proprietorship is concerned, the papers on the one 
side are as much the property of the House as the 
papers on the other side. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary wishes to 
make a statement. 

The SECRETARY. I wish to say that I have not 
given up the papers, bvit I do not know of any pa- 
pers in the pocket of any gentleman, except those 
papers which were brought in by Dr. Chase himself 
early in the session. Mr. Welsh may have copies 
made before, but I have the originals of all the pa- 
pers that came into my possession, and no one has 
them, or will have them, without an order of the 
House. The only papers not in my hands are those 
which Dr. Chase read, and one of the gentlemen of 
the Illinois Deputation, as coming from Dr. Sey- 
mour, or takeh down by dictation from Dr. Sey- 
mour's mouth. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. I wish to 
ask if all the papers are to be made the property of 
the House, because I had some papers bearing on 
that question. I wish to know if the proposal now 
is that all the letters and questions which were read 
to the House are to be the property of the House ? 

The PRESIDENT. I really do not know. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I think it an act of 
justice to all parties that those papers should be fur- 
nished. It is right that Dr. Seymour should have 
the papers. It is right that Bishop Coxe should 
have whatever papers bear on the subject in reply. 
I had hoped the matter would be arranged without 
bringing it before the House ; but as it has been 
brought here, I will simply say that Dr. Sey- 
mour desires to have official copies of any letters 
which were laid before the House during this session 
in any manner affecting his doctrinal character; and 
in his behalf I was requested to secure these papers. 
I ascertained that the Deputy from Pennsylvania 
had an original letter in his possession, which he 
will communicate to Dr. Seymour, only on the con- 
dition that the House will give to him official copies 
of the answers of Dr. Seymour to the charges there 
contained. I think that is entirely right ; and if a 
formal resolution is necessary, I hope it will be 
passed, directing" the Secretary to give copies. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New jersey. I rise to offer 
an amendment to the resolution offered by the La}^ 
Deputy from Pennsylvania, and that is that the 
Bishop of the Diocese of Western New York, Rev. 
Di\ Seymour, and the Lay Deputy from Pennsyl- 
vania, be allowed to have such papers as have been 
presented in the Seymour case, or may hereafter 
be presented, as may be necessary in order that 
these gentlemen may explain tlie position which 
they have taken in relation to this matter. It seems 
but an act of justice to Dr. Seymour on the one 
hand, and Bishop Coxe on the other; but it seem? 
that the gentleman from Peimsylvania, who mider- 
stands busin-ess better than some of us clergymen 
do, has cei-tain things which he is willing to sell us 
at a certain price. I do not think we shall get them 
unless we pay the price. I think it is a great deal 



217 



better for us to pay the price than not have the 
papei-s. I move the amendment. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I accept the 
amendment. 

The PRESIDENT. Will the Rev. Deputy from 
New Jersey reduce his amendment to writing i 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. I will. 

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. It seems to me 
that this whole matter is entirely outside of the 
jurisdiction of this House. I do not see how it is 
possible to compel any member to give up private 
papers which he holds; and any action of this 
House on this subject is only carrying out a private 
agreement between parties. It seems to me that it 
should not have been introduced here. An 
amendment has just been offered to the resolution 
already offered by the gentleman on my left, that 
all papers hereafter presented on this subject shall 
also be delivered to the parties. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Only to three. 

Rev, Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. Allow me a 
word of explanation, I said " that should be ne- 
cessary in order to their establishing the positions 
they had taken." That is the idea I intended to con- 
vev. 

JVIr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. I mistook in that 
respect. But in regard to the other point it seems 
to me incontrovertible that these gentlemen can ex- 
clmnge their papers if they see fit, without the action 
of this House, as any action of this House cannot be 
mandatory upon them as to whether they will do it 
or not. They have come to this House to ask the 
consent of the House to make a private arrangement, 
which they do not need the consent of this House to 
make, as I understand. Mr. Welsh can, of course, 
deliver his papers upon receiving copies of those 
which he desires ; and it seems to me that the House 
does not need io take any action on this subject at 
all. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The Secretary 
will not give them up without the action of the 
House. 

Rev. Dr. CHASE, of Illinois. The point I wish 
to make is simply this. The motion of Rev. Dr. 
Stringf ellow the other morning was strictly in or- 
der, as the papers he mentioned are properly his 
papers, and in his control. Any person making a 
speech under the circumstances Dr. Stringfellow 
did had a perfect right to use any paper that he 
chose as part of his speech, and it does not become by 
the use thus made of that paper the property of the 
House. It was precisely so in reference to the pa- 
per which I myself read. I still retain that in my 
possession, I am, however, perfectly willing to 
place myself at the discretion of the House. If they 
say that that paper is the property of the 
House, I shall at once deliver it into 
the hands of the Secretary ; but I do not 
regard it as properly the property of this House, I 
regard precisely in the same relation the papers sub- 
mitted by the Rev, Dr. Stringfellow, that they are 
his property; that when he laid them on the Secre- 
tary's table he did not part with the ownership of 
that property. It is true he had read the papers in 
the course of his speech, as part and parcel of his 
argument ; but still he parted with no ownership 
in those papers. When he confided them to the 
Secretary's desk, the Secretaiy undoubtedly acted 
in perfect propriety in resolving to wait for the in- 
structions of the House, The House ought yester- 
day to have instructed the Secretary to deliver 
them into his hands. That is the simple point I 
wished to make. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania, I 
was about to make a statement very similar to that 
which has been made, not from any inunediate per- 
sonal interest of my own, but because; happening to 
stand near Dr. Stringfellow at the time of his mo- 



tion, he explained his wishes in some manner to me, 
and since he is not here present himself, I feel 
bound, as far as I may, to speak in his behalf. 

I understood him distinctly to say that his request 
I was not at all with reference in. the first place to the 
letter of the Bishop of Western New York, but 
simply that he might reclaim the papers which ho 
had read here and which were laid upon the Secre- 
tary's table, not to put them into the possession of 
the Convention, but that they might be at the time 
examined by members of the Convention who 
might wish to speak in the debate. Without refer- 
ring to the letter of the Bishop of Western New 
York, he asked the House to instruct the Secretary, 
who had up to that time declined to do so, to return to 
him his papers. He said he had made application, 
and the Secretary said that he had no authority to 
deliver them. He therefore asked the House to in- 
struct the Secretary to return the papers to him. 
He then on further suggestion consented to willingly 
leave them in possession of the Secretary, if the 
papers on the other side were also left there. That 
was a private arrangement. But all he asked of the 
House was to withdraw them. 

The SECRETARY. I will read the endorsement 
on the papers presented by Dr, Stringfellow : 

"Questions to and answers from Dr, Seymour, 
presented by Dr, Stringfellow, " 

To whom did Dr. Stringfellow^ present those pa- 
pers, and why is this endorsement in his own hand- 
writing ? 

Rev, Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey, I have altered 
the phraseology slightly, and therefore I prefer to 
read the resolution myself, and explain why I altered 
it. Of course, it is for the gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania to adopt it or not, as he pleases. He says, 
however, it is satisfactory to him : 

"Resolved, That the Bishop of the Diocese of 
Western New York, the Rev, Dr, Seymour, and the 
Delegation from Pennsylvania" — 

I have altered that from " delegate" to "delega- 
gation. " 

— "be permitted to have copies of papers in the case 
of the Bishop-elect of Illinois, as may be necessary to 
establish positions taken by the several parties. " 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I do not fully 
imderstand what has occurred, but it seems to me 
that the House should clearly understand what they 
are voting on before what I think is a very wrong- 
precedent be established. As I understand the mo- 
tion of the Clerical Deputy from New Jersey, it is 
that the originals are to be kept by the Secretary, 
and copies furnished to the parties who own these 
documents. Is not that the motion ? 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will have to 
speak for itself. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I could not 
hear it read here. 

The Secretary read the resolution jof Rev. Dr 
Clark, of New Jersey 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I understand 
that to mean that the originals are to belong to the 
House. Now, I do not think there is any lawyer in 
this Assembly who will maintain that the House 
have aught to do with the title or the possession of 
these original papers, not that it is of much impor- 
tance in this case, but that it is a precedent which 
ought never to be set. The testimony produced in 
this case is partly in writing and partly oral. How 
are you going to preserve the original oral testimony 
which was not recorded, and yet record and preserve 
a part of the testimony in the possession of tho 
House ? Did any one ever yet hear that a Court of 
Record, after a trial had been had and terminated 
and decided and there was no appeal, that the Cornet 
kept possession of the title-deeds to a man's property, 
that the Court kept possession of original papers 
that might be of value, that the Court kept posses- 



218 



sion of letters written from party to party ? Surely 
upon refloction this thing will not ba insisted upon, 
and, therefore, I move as a substitute that the docu- 
ments be g-iven into the possession of the parties, 
and that the Secretary keejj copies of them. 

Tbe PRESIDENT. I would remind the House 
that at the close of the debate, and the voting, the 
House adopted a resolution to remove the injunction 
of secrecy from aU the previous proceedings. That, it 
ssems to me, did away with this question which is 
before us. It makes the whole thing public, and 
anybody who wants documents can go and get them, 
or copies of them. 

Mr. SMITH, of Western Kew York. When the 
remarks which have just fallen from the lips of the 
Chair were about to be made, I was on the pomt of 
rising in my place to say precisely what the Chair 
has said — that these documents, having been placed 
in the possession of the House, and having become a 
part of the records of this House, and the injunction 
of secrecy having been removed by the vote of this 
House from its proceedings in secret session, any 
member of this House, as a matter of right, has the 
privilege of taking a copy of any of the documents 
without any vote of this House whatever. 

When the papers that were presented here on be- 
half of Dr. Seymour were read, those papers were 
his own written testimony, delivered to this House 
for its use, and not read here as the private papers 
of an individual, and I so regarded them at the time, 
and so, I think, did every member of this House re- 
gard them at the time ; and with that feeling strong- 
ly impressed upon my mind, I requested Judge 
Sheffe}'', who read the letter from the Bishop of 
Western New York, addressed to myself, to deliver 
the letter to me, after his speech v/as made, that it 
might be placed on file with the Secretary of this 
House, and it was so immediately placed on file, as 
it was right and i^roper that it should be. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. The gentleman will 
allow me to say that I understand it is not on 
file. 

Mr. SMITH, of Westsrn New York. It is on file, 
and has never been removed from the files of this 
House from the time Judge Sheff ey took his seat. 

The SECRETARY. I have the letter of Bishop 
Coxe. 

Mr. SMITH, of Western New York. There is no 
reason why that letter, or the written answer, and 
the written testimony sent to this House by Dr. 
Seymour himself, and read to this House for its 
instruction, as to his views, and as the evidence 
that he tendered in his own behalf as to his position, 
should remain where he placed it— in the possession 
and the control of this House. Believing that to 
be beyond dispute, and believing too that the Chair 
is entirely right in saying that the injunction of 
secrecy having been removed, any Deputy here 
has a right to receive copies of these records, as of 
any other proceedings that have become the records 
of this House, I regard, as the Chair does, that this 
motion is entirely unnecessary and useless; and 
having that viev/, I move to lay this whole subject 
upon the table. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I should like to 
say a single word. [" Order, order."] I undei-stand 
the ruling of the Chair to be — 

The PRESIDENT— The Chair has not ruled any- 
thing. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I thought the 
Chair did. ["Order, order."] 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair merely made a sug- 
gestion to the House. It is moved that the pending 
matter be laid on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Allow me to pre- 
sent these papers ? 
The PRESIDENT. Hand them to the Secretary. 



Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I give all I have 
to the Secretary — tbe original papers ; I have no 
copies, 

LEAVES OF ABSENCE. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the Com- 
mittee on Elections, reported that leave of absence 
for the remainder of the session had been granted to 
Rev. Montgomery Schuyler, D.D., of Missouri; Rev. 
Warren H. Roberts, of Indiana ; Mr. Peter B. Bailey, 
of Mississippi. 

STATE OF THE CHURCH. 

Rev. Dr.- VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York, 
from the Committee on the State of the Church, pre- 
sented the following report : 

The Committee on the State of the Church have 
had necessarily to postpone theii* report till we ap 
proach the close of the session for several reasons, 
but principally on account of the delay in receiving 
[ the Tabular Digest of the several Dioceses, and the in- 
I completeness of many of them when they come into 
our hands. Although the Secretary of the House, as 
i we are informed, furnishes the ecclesiastical authority 
I of each Diocese with the proper blank form some 
; days and some weeks before the General Convention, 
I yet; in many instances they are not filled out until 
i the Convention has been in session for several days, 
I and then very often imperfectly, for want of the 
I necessary documents. We have endeavored to guard 
! against these delays and inconvenience in future 
Conventions by recommending a form of parochial 
report, and an amendment providing that these im- 
portant papers shall be presented on or before the 
first Monday of the session. We very respectfully 
I but earnestly call the attention of Standing Commit- 
j tees to this much-neglected duty." 

I TEN BISHOPS DECEASED. 

I During the past three years it has pleased God to 
j remove from the scene of their earthly labors a 
larger number of our Rt. Rev. Fathers than during 
: any similar period in our history. The following 
: ten Bishops of the Church in these United States, 
j enrolled upon the records of the living at the last 
j General Convention, have since been called to "go 
[ up higher," and are now "resting from their la- 
j bors " : 

' The Rt. Rev. Chas. Pettit Mcllvaine, Ohio, March 
I 12, 1873. 

The Rt. Rev. Manton Eastbum, Massachusetts, 

September 11, 1872. 
The Rt. Rev. George Upfold, Indiana, August 26, 

1872. 

The Rt. Rev. Henry John Whitehouse, Illinois. 
The Rt. Rev. John Payne (retired), Africa, October 
i 23, 1874. 

j The Rt. Rev. Thomas F. Davis, South Carohna, 

I December 2, 1871. 

j The Rt. Rev. Henry Vf . Lee, Iowa. 

The Rt. Rev. George M. Randall, Colorado, Sep- 
I tember28, 1873. 

I The Rt. Rev. William E. Armitage, Wisconsin, 
j The Rt. Rev. John G. Auer, Cape Palmas, Africa, 
I Of most of them it maybe said "they came to 
I their graves in full age, like as a shock of com 
i Cometh in his season." Of marked endurance, gifts, 
! peculiarities, and attainments, all have left a re- 
I cord of labor, earnestness, and self-denial that 
i should be kept prominent before the Church for 
I her guidance, encouragement, and support ; and 
i well will it be for those who succeed them if they 
1 can remedy the imperfections and infirmities of our 
i common nature with as much of infirmity over- 
I come, imperfections removed, and good accom- 
plished, as will be seen in their respective Episco- 
pates. God takes men as they are, and when He 
! finds the willing mind, the true heart, and the self- 



219 



roTisecra.tion, "which coxmts not life deai- unto 
itsellV' Ho works marvellous results, which go on 
widening and extending- long after the human 
agent has passed aw^ay and become forgotten. 

SEVEN BISHOPS ADDED. 

Seven additions ha^ve been made to our line of 
Bishops dm-iug the last three years : 
The Rt. Rev. Mark Anthony De WolfftHowe, d.d., 

Central Pennsylvania, 1871. 
The Rt, Rev. William Hobart Hare, d.d., Ino- 

brara. 1873. 

The Rt. Rev. John Gottlieb Auer, d.d., Africa, 
1873. 

The Rt. Rev. Benjamin H. Paddock, d.d., Massa- 

sachusetts. 1873. 
The Rt. Rev. Theodore B. Lyman, D.D., Assistant, 

South Carolina, 1873. 
The Rt. Rev. John F. Spaulding, d.d., Colorado, 

1874. 

The Rt. Rev. Edward R. Welles, d.d., Wisconsin, 
187'4. 

GROWTH OP THE CHURCH. 

The documents laid before us, coming from all 
portions of our widely-extended Church, present 
evidences generally of growth and advancement, 
and furnish great cause for devout gratitude to the 
Divine Head of the Chui'ch. It is a singular and 
noteworthy circumstance that, at a period when 
within the Church there are great diversities of 
sentiment, and, in the opinion of many, both ad- 
ditions to the faith as well as suppressions or over- 
shadowings of essential principles ; while without 
indifference and unbelief have appeared in almost 
Protean forms, and with all the power of cultivated 
intellect and ea^rnest determination have laid the 
axe at the very foundations of our holy religion, 
yet there has been not only no Seeing before the 
enemy, no traitorous surrender of the citadel of 
Divine truth, no leaning upon the armor in mute 
wonder at the boldness and magnitude of the at- 
tack ; but zeal was never more persevering, self- 
denial never more ready to seize opportunity, and 
attention never more acute^ in hearing the word of 
command. The details are most encouraging, and 
the work accomplished shows how well the Master 
has been served and the labors rewarded, for it is a 
reward when we see that the Divine "Word has 
free course and is glorified." 

But there are in these documents some facts that 
are not cheering or satisfactory. In 1871 there were 
448 candidates for Holy Orders, and in 1874 but 301 : 
decrease in three years, 147. In 1873 it is said there 
were no ordinations in 17 Dioceses, and of the whole 
number of candidates only 60 or 70 were able to 
maintain themselves. Thus we have not only the 
supply of the ministry diminished, but the fact re- 
vealed that parents of pecuniary ability, elevated 
social position, and great culture, seemingly with- 
hold their sons from the Lord's higher service. 
We have also had our attention called to the fact 
that, in many instances, the young novitiate is ad- 
mitted to the Diaconate and Priesthood with such 
imperfect qualification that we are forced to the 
conclusion that there is great imperfection in our 
legislation, or they whose office and duty call them 
to decide upon the qualifications of candidates are 
too lenient in their admission of the applicants. 
Your Committee, while conscious of much imper- 
fection in our Canons, are inclined to adopt the 
latter alternative, and would therefore suggest to 
all chaplains increased vigilance and particularity 
in conducting the requisite examinations. 

mSSIONARY WORK. 

We find long records of missionary work and the 
great success attending it ; and every earnest Chris- 
tian has occasion to rejoice in the contemplation of 



our most gratifying expansion and growth. But 
such mission labor involves the providing of the 
Church building of some form at the very outset. 
The missionary finds the field too destitute to fur- 
nish the means for its erection. Being absent from 
his post to solicit aid involves the loss of many 
\veeks and months; much personal humiliation, to 
be follov/ed not infrequently by failure; while the 
places of wealth and enterprise visited find such ap- 
plications so numerous that it seems to ha,ve become 
a settled conviction in the Church that either the 
missionary ought to build no faster or better than 
the ability of his people justifies, or, if there is no 
such ability, we ought to have a general building 
fund, to be disbursed by v/ise and judicious mana- 
gers to those who a;re in need. We hail, therefore, 
with great plea.sure the measure v/hich has jxist been 
inaugurated by the call of the Presiding Bishop for 
a preliminary meeting in this city, and trust that 
the whole Church will see how important are earn- 
est effort and large liberality to make it effectual in 
accomplishing the end proposed. The very exist- 
ence of a Church Building Society v/iil suggest the 
opportunity to the affluent, and all the devoted mem- 
bers of the Church, for benefiting the ignorant and 
the destitute with the knowledge of the Gospel. 

Circmnstances have also called our attention to 
two sections of our common country, which seem 
to be in some degree neglected in our mission work : 
the Northern New England States, and the desti- 
tute regions of the South. If it be said that the 
population of these old States is diminishing as they 
go to people the vast West, we reply. Which is best, 
to draw that element within the Church while at 
the homestead and growing up on their old native 
hills, or to vv^ait till they become fired v/ith a w'orld- 
ly am.bition to be rich, or to gain place in a new 
country, and then go forth without religious training 
and with no spiritual anchorage to found towns, and 
cities, and States; when the labor of bringing them 
to a knowledge of the truth will be tenfold greatei', 
and prove entirely ineffectual ? Three years ago 
the wants of the South were pressed very earnestlj^ 
in the Committee's report, and w^e see no reason for 
changing one word of that just representation. 
When we consider the small number of our Indian 
tribes, a few hundred thousand, and the more than 
four millions of the colored race, and that some 
$70,000 or $80,000 were contributed to the former 
when the Commission had difficulty in sustaining 
free schools and missions among the latter, we may 
well ask whether this is " rightly dividing the word 
of truth," and giving to every man as he has need. 
But the C8.se is worse than this, for the several 
Southern Dioceses in their length and breadth are 
calling to-day for our sympathy, prayers, and aid, 
and will rev/ard the Church for any abundance that 
may be granted in their great need. A people that 
never spared of their own v/ealth in days of prosper- 
ity should not be forgotten when claiming a bless- 
ing in their destitution. We are not to be- 
stow all that we have upon that portion of the field 
which just now is most rapidly increasing, but, re- 
membering the actual work of the past in the South- 
ern section of our land, draw our favorable infer- 
ences for the future — if opportunity is given, aid 
afforded, and fostering care extended, which are 
necessary for developing the large resources and 
capabilities possessed by a once prosperous people. 

AN ENCOURAGING FUTURE. 

In view of the historj^ of the past triennial pe- 
riod, and the events that are transpiring around us, 
we can unhesitatingly avow our fixed conviction 
that this Church has a most encouraging future be- 
fore her ; that labor has never been more earnest, 
faith more positive, self-sacrifice more devoted, and 
kindly feeling and charity among brethren more 



220 



general. All we seem to need is a higher standard 
of personal holiness among all our people, and a 
larger measure of liberality in sustaining the works 
the Church has in hand to secure in the future a 
growth and expansion that shall exceed even the 
great advancement of the past. The field is widen- 
ing—the enemy is alive and powerful ; and it be- 
hooves us to fight manfully, contend earnestly, for 
the faith once delivered to the saints, and " work 
while it is day, for the night cometh when no man 
can work. " 

The reports of the several Dioceses are herewith 
presented, and form a part of this report. 

The Committee recommend the adoption of the 
following resolution : 

"Resolved, That the view of the state of the 
Church here presented be transmitted to the House 
of Bishops, asking their prayers and blessings, and 
requesting them to prepare and cause to be pub- 
lished a Pastoral Letter to the members of the 
Church." 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

E. M. VAN DEUSEN, 
Chairman. 

Form of Parochial Report 

To be recommended for use in this Church. 

Church, Parish, City or County, 

Diocese, Rector. 

Number of Families. 

Whole Number of Souls. 

Baptisms. —Infants. 
Adults. 
Total. 

Confirmations. 

Communicants. — Added by removal. 
Added by admission. 

Whole number added. 
Removed. 
Died. 

Withdrawn. 
Suspended. 

Whole number lost. 
Present number. 

Marriages. 
Burials. 

Public Services.— On Sundays. 
On other days. 

Holy Communion. 
Number of times administered. 
Public. 
Private. 

Sunday-Schools. 
Number. 

Number of Teachers. 

Number of Males. 
Number of Females. 
Total. 

Number of Other Officers. 
Number of Scholars. 
Number of Males. 
Number of Females. 
Total. 

Parish Schools. 

Namber of Teachers. 
Number of other Oflficers. 
Number of Scholars. 
Males. 
Females. 
Total. 



Other Parochial Institutions. 
Contributions within the Diocese. 
Parochial. 
Alms. 
Missions. 
Rector's Salary. 
Parish Expenses 
Miscellaneous. 
T(fbal. 

Diocesan. 

Bishop's Salary. 
Missions. 
Miscellaneous. 
Total. 

Without the Diocese. 
Domestic Missions. 
Indian. 
Foreign. 
Miscellaneous. 
Total. 

Aggregate. 

Churches— Number. 
Chapels. 

Sittings in Churches. " 
Sittings in Chapels. 

Rectory, 

Estimated Value of Church or Chapel. 
Estimated Value of Rectory. 
Estimated Value of other Church property. 
Total. 

Am'nt of Indebtedness of Church property. 



Form of Report to be made by the Bishop of the 
Diocese to the Annual Convention. 

Church Hospitals. 
Name. 
Location. 
When Organized. 
Number of Inmates. 
Amoimt of Endo-^vment, 
Annual income. 
Contributions. 
Total Income. 

Church Asylums for Orphans. 
Name. 
Location. 

Number of Inmates. 
Amount of Endowment. 
Annual income. 
Contributions. 
Total Income. 

Church Homes, for training of Deaconesses for 
the aged and infirm, etc., etc. 
Name. 
Location. 
Object. 
Endowment. 
Annual income. 

Academies. 

Name. 
Location. 
No. Teachers. 
Pupils. 
Endowment. 

Collegiate. 

Name. 

Location. 

Officers. 

Number Students. 
Graduates up to date. 
Amount of Endowment. 
Annual income. 
Total income. 



221 



Theological. | 
Name. t 
Locatior. j 
Officers. 
Students. 
Alumni to date. 
Volumes in Library. 
Value of Land and Buildings. 
Amount of Endowment. 
Annual income. 

Other Educational Institutions. 
Name, 
Location. 
Officers. 
Students. 
Endowment. 
Annual income. 
Total income. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I move the ad- 
option of that report, and that 500 copies of it be 
printed for the use of the Deputies. It is desired 
that this document should be spread throughout the 
Chui'ch. It contains valuable facts, and it is thought 
that a large number of copies will be desired. If the 
Convention should order 500 copies to be printed, ad- 
ditional copies can be obtained by purchase from the 
printer. I make the motion. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair wDl put a separate 
question first on the adoption of the resolution re- i 
ported by the Committee. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the 
motion to print 500 copies. 

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. I hope the 
number may be so enlarged that each parochial 
clergyman may have a copy. I would print as 
many of those reports as copies of the Pastoral Let- 
ter are printed. T^his is one of the most important 
documents brought before the House during its 
whole Session. This is the result of the deliberations of 
a Committee composed of a representative from each 
Diocese of the Church. It contains most important 
suggestions, and I can conceive of no way in which 
we can do a better s^vice to the Church than by 
printing a sufficient number to place one copy in the 
hands of each Parochial Clergyman. I hope a large 
edition wiU be ordered. 

The PRESIDENT. Does the Deputy from Michi- 
gan make any motion ? 

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. I would ask 
the Secretary the number of our parochial clergy ? 

The SECRETARY. About three thousand. 

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. I would 
say thi'ee thousand copies. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. As a mem- 
ber of the Committee on Expenses I object. We 
want to economize all we can. 

Rev. Dr. GEER, of New York. I hope the 
matter will be left open, so that every member can 
order as many copies as he may desire from the 
Secretary, or from the person printing. Already 
one clergyman, a member of this House, has 
ordered one thousand copies for his own use in his 
parish, and I doubt not that many will order large 
numbers. It seems to me that if the original reso- 
lution offered by Mr. Livingston is proposed, then 
the report being in type copies may be ordered 
as they are needed or desired by the clergyman. I 
understand that the proprietors of The Church- 
man who are to print this report will receive orders, 
so that, if the resolution is passed in its original 
form as presented by Mr. Livingston, it will be 
satisfactory. 

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. With that 
explanation, I withdraw my amendment. 

The PRESIDENT. The amendment is with- 
drawn, and the question is on the motion of Mr. 



I Livingston to print five hundred copies of this re- 
I port for the vise of the House. 

I Rev. Mr. CADY, of New York. It appears on 
the Journal, does it not ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes. sir. 
Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. Then I do not 
see the necessity of printing it. 
The motion was not agreed to. 

POSTURES IN communion SERVICE. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh, presented the 
following report, which was read : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was re- 
ferred a resolution proposing a request to the House 
of Bishops of the expression of their opinion as to 
postures in the Communion Service, respectfully 
report: 

"That they have considered the same and are of 
opinion, in view of the recommendation already 
made by the Committee of a commission to revise 
the Rubrics, that it is not expedient to adopt the 
resolution. They therefore recommend the adop- 
tion of the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be dis- 
charged from the consideration of the proposed re- 
solution in regard to postures in the communion 
service." 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. That resolu- 
tion was referred to the Committee on Canons 
! through mistake. It was a clerical error in the record, 
i On page 49 of Tee Churchman, the stenographic re- 
port, ifc wiU be seen that the President said, immedi- 
ately after the offering of the resolution, " The reso- 
lution Mdll go on the Calendar." Instead of that, by 
mistake, it was sentto the Committee on Canons. It is 
purely an error. I hope, therefore, that it may be 
permitted to take its place on the Calendar, where 
it was ordered originally. 
The PRESIDENT. It will go there now, of course. 

canon on DIVORCE. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois, submitted the following re- 
port, which was placed on the Calendar : 

"The Committee on Canons have had under con- 
sideration Message No. 21, of the House of Bishops, 
containing an amended Canon on the subject of Di- 
vorce, and recommend the adoption of the following 
resolution : 

"Resolved (that the House of Deputies concur 
with the House of Bishops in the proposed Canon on 
the subject of Divorce, with the following amend- 
ments) : 

"1. Strike out Section I. 
"2. Strike out Sections III., IV., and V. 
" 3. Strike out the words 'Section 11. ' 
"So that the Canon may read as follows : 

" Of Marriage and Divorce. 

" No minister of this Church shall solemnize matri- 
mony in any case where there is a divorced wife or 
husband of either party still living, and where the 
divorce was obtained for some cause arising after 
marriage ; but this Canon shall not be held to apply 
to the innocent party in a divorce for the cause of 
adultery, or to parties once divorced seeking to be 
united again, " 

NEW DIOCESE IN WISCONSIN. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia, submitted the 
following report, which was read : 

' ' The Committee on the Admission of new Dioceses, 
to whom was referred the memorial from the Con- 
vention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
Diocese of Wisconsin, asking the consent of the Gen- 
eral Convention to the creation of a new Diocese 
within the limits of the present Diocese of Wiscon- 
sin, respectfully report : 

" That having examined the documents commit- 



222 



ted to them, and found them to be correct, they re- 
commend the adoption of the following preamble 
and resolution : 

" AVhereas, a request has been presented to the 
House of Deputies from the Diocese of Wisconsin 
that a new Diocese must be erected in the present 
Diocese of Wisconsin, to consist of the nineteen 
counties of Marathon, Oconto, Shawano, Door, 
Kewaunee, Brown, Outagamie^^ Waupaca, Portage, 
Wood, Adams, Waushara, Winnebago, Calumet, 
Manitowoc, Sheboygun, Fond du Lac, Green Lake, 
Marquette, and also such portion of Dodge County 
as may be necessary to include in the limits of the 
new Diocese the village of Waupun ; and whereas 
it appears by official documents laid before this 
House that the Bishop of Wisconsin has consented 
to the erection of said Diocese, and that all 
the requirements of the Fifth Article of the Consti- 
tution are fulfilled. Therefore be it 

" Resolved, That this House (the House of Bishops 
concurring) do consent to and ratify the formation 
of the said new Diocese within the hmits of the pres- 
sent Diocese of Wisconsin," 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. I hope this 
resolution will be put on its passage now. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION. 

Rev. Mr. G-ETZ, of Pittsburgh. I ask the consent 
of the House to suspend the rules for the purpose of 
getting permission, if I can, to have put upon the 
Calendar the resolution referring to the Centen- 
nial Celebration, which I had the honor of offer- 
ing yesterday. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on suspending 
the rule which requires all new business to be in- 
troduced on or before the 16th day of the session, 
for the purpose of receiving the resolutions indi- 
cated. 

Rev. Dr. ADAIIS, of Wisconsin. I ask that these 
resolutions be read, that the House may be able to 
vote deliberately upon them. 

The PRESIDENT. They have not been presented 
yet. The question is on suspending the rule to let 
them be presented. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. May I speak 
upon the question ? 

The PRESIDENT. I am rather inclined to think 
you can. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I can speak 
upon the suspension of the rules. 

The PRESIDENT. I think so, as at present ad- 
vised. 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentuckj^ Is it in order to 
demand that the new business shall be read to the 
House until consent is given ^ 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I think the gentle- 
man from Kentucky perfectly right. We must sus- 
pend the rules before we can take up the question at 
all. 

The PRESIDENT. I think so. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. The question is, 
whether we shall suspend the rules to allow new 
matter to be received. 

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. I move to lay 
the motion to suspend the rules on the table. 

Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. Cannot I say two or 
three words ? ["Order," "Order."] 

The PRESIDENT. The motion to lay on the 
table is not debatable. 

The motion was agreed to. 

ELECTION OF VICE-PRESIDENT. 

The PRESIDENT. The business appointed for 
eleven o'clock is the election of a^ Vice-President 
by ballot. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I move that the 
House proceed to the election of a Vice President 
under the standing order adopted yesterday. 



The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. In behalf of the 
Lay Delegation of Pittsburgh, I nominate for the 
office of Vice-President tlie Hon. Lucius B. Otis, a 
Lay Deputy from the Diocese of Ilhnois. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I nommate the 
Rev. Dr. Beardsley, of the Diocese of Connecticut. 

Rev. Dr. DALZELL, of Louisiana. On behalf of 
the deputation of Louisiana, I beg to nominate the 
Hon. Judge Comstock, of the Diocese of Central 
New York. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
beg to nominate the Hon. Mr. Montgomery, of 
Western New York. 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. I nominate 
Rev. Dr. Van Deusen, of Central New York. 

Mr. ANDREWS, of Ohio. On behalf of the 
Delegation from Ohio, I nominate Judge Sheffey, of 
Virginia. 

Rev. Dr. BEERS, of Albany. I ask to nominate 
Hon. Mr. Baldwin, of Michigan. 

Mr. LAMBERTON, of Central Pennsylvania. Mr. 
President, I nominate the Hon. George W. Race, of 
! Louisiana. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I ask leave respectfully 
to decline. 

Mr. BALDWIN, of Michigan. I respectfully de- 
cline the nomination, and would nominate Hon. 
j Judge Otis. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I would 
put in nomination the name of the Hon. John Y/. 
Stevenson, of Kentucky. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. This is a new- 
office instituted tvv'o days ago. I want to Imow- 
what his business is to be, in order that I may vote 
intelligently on the matter. 

The PRESIDENT. You wiU have to go back 
to the report of the Committee on Canons, who 
reported the order creating the office. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentvicky. I am exceed- 
ingly obliged to the Reverend Deputy from Long 
Island (Rev. Dr. Schenck) who nominated me, but 
I respectfully ask that my name be withdrawn. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of Connecticut. Mr. Presi- 
dent, we are now in the fourth-week of this session. 
We must spend at least half this day in the ballot, 
and I move to lay the whole matter on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the order 
for eleven o'clock this day — the election of Vice- 
President — be laid on the table. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
rise to make an enquiry. If we pass this matter by, 
is there a Canon which makes it the duty of the next 
Convention to elect a Vice-President ? 

The PRESIDENT. The Canon has been passed, 
and all that this motion does is to lay the order of 
the day on the table. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
will repeat my question. I understand a Canon has 
been passed which makes it the duty of the General 
Convention, or of this House, to elect a Vice-Presi- 
dent. I make the enquiry, in case we pass over this 
order of business this Convention, would it not be 
the duty of the next Convention at its organization 
to elect a Vice-President ? 

The PRESIDENT. I understand so ; most cer- 
tainly. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. So 
I supposed, and that being the case I suppose we 
might let it pass over now. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. That is certain- 
ly the case. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion is to lay on the 
table the order of the day for eleven o'clock this day 
in regard to the election of Vice-President. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. If I understood the 
chair — 

The PRESIDENT. The motion is not debatable. 



223 



Mr. RACE, of Louisiaua. I do not mean to de- 
bate it. If I understand the President, there was an 
order of the day fixed j-esterday for the election of 
a Vice-President to-day at eleven o'clock. 

The PRESIDENT. 'Yes, sir. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. Now I understand that 
the motion about to be put is to lay that on 
the table. I say that it is unparliamentary. 
You cannot lay it on the table; it is 
already a fixed order. You can move 
to discharge the order; but the motion 
to lay on the table an order already fixed is 
a new mode of parliamentary proceeding, I appre- 
hend. You can postpone the order ; you can dis- 
charge the order ; but to lay on the table that which 
has ah'eady passed is a new mode of proceeding. I 
trust, if it'^is desirable to do what is proposed, a 
change will be made in the motion, so as to postpone 
the order, either indefinitely or to a fixed time. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not know which mode 
is best ; but the order had been taken up, and was in 
process of execution ; and then I supposed that, as 
well as any other matter before the House, could be 
laid on the table. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. No, sir, the motion 
should be to discharge the order indefinitely. 

Mr. BURGYV^IN, of Pittsburgh. I agree with the 
President in saying that any matter before the 
House for consideration can be laid on the table. 
Othei-wise you might have a Canon made the order 
of the day, which you could not lay on the table. It 
is always under the control of thellouse to lay any- 
thing on the table. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana, I move in lieu of the 
motion to lay on the table, that the order be dis- 
charged indefinitely, 

The PRESIDENT. I do not know which is the 
proper motion. 

Mr. PARKER, of Virginia, I submit that it 
must be manifest that if the House is not prepared 
at this moment when an order comes up to act upon 
it, it has a right to lay it on the table and keep it 
under its control ; and that is aU that we are doing. 
My own hope is that this matter will not be can ied 
any further, but left the law for future Conventions, 
that in organizing the House in the early part of the 
session this office will be filled. 

The PRESIDENT, The Chair will put the ques- 
tion on the motion to lay on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

THE CANON ON RITUAL. 

Rev. Mr, BOLTON, of Pennsylvania, WiU an 
amendment to the Canon on the subject of Ritual 
be now in order : 

The PRESIDENT, That matter is not before us, 
but it may be brought before us now by motion. 

Mr, BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I move that we 
proceed to the consideration of the order of the day 
of yesterday, being the Canon on Ritual, 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I move to amend 
that it be the order of the day for twelve o'clock, 
and that we proceed in the meantime with the 

The PRESIDENT. It is now the order of the day 
for twelve o'clock. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York, I move that we 
go on with the Calendar until twelve o'clock. 
' Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. I move 
to take up on the Calendar the report in regard to 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. It would require 
a suspension of the rules to take up the Calendar 
before the time appointed by the rule, and I think 
it possible, if we go into the discussion of the Canon 
on Ritual, that we may conclude it before two 
o'clock, at which time another order of the day will 
come up. 



' The PRESIDENT, The question is on the mo- 
tion of Mr. Burgwin to take up at this time for con- 
sideration the Canon on Ritual, 
j The motion was agreed to, and the House resumed 
the consideration of the Canon on Ritual reported 
by the Committee on Canons. 
I Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. Mr. Presi- 
dent, it seems to me one thing we must admit in 
I the teaching of to-day: that Ritualism is a mode of 
I teaching adopted everywhere. In my own profes- 
sion, a gentleman who had studied his profession 
[ fifty years ago told me that when he began to study 
I medicine there was put into his hands a book in 
1 twenty volumes which he was to read, and when ho 
i had finished that there was put into his hand a book 
i in thii'ty-five volumes of commentary on that book, 
and that he had to read through. Now when we get 
a medical student we do not give him a book. The first 
thing we do, we put him into a physiological labora- 
tory, then into a chemical laboratory, and so on. 
j We make him work. We appreciate what one of 
my friends from Massachusetts told us here of the 
I gi'eat importance of teaching by Ritualism, As I 
i said, we appreciated in Massachusetts, at one time, 
I something of the want of Rituahsm, I am in hopes 
I that the gentlemen of this House will have an op- 
j portTinity of going to Boston, and that we shall 
show them a little Ritualism there, I should 
j like to take them around Massachusetts, and show 
i them some of the old meetuig-houses and some 
of the old Communion tables there. Our people did 
not believe in Rituahsm, They built little houses 
for the town meetings in week time, and church 
meetings on Simday ; and I can show you meeting- 
houses where the moderators of the pubhc meetings 
used to sit and score the tallies of the votes on the 
Communion table with a knife, because the jack- 
knife was a more familiar instrument with them 
than the pen, and that was the easiest way of 
recording votes, I know that my ancestors origi- 
1 naUy, when they left the church, believed in a Divine 
I Presence in the sacrament of the communion ; that 
! they believed in regeneration by baptism ; that they 
I believed in a grace being given in baptism ; but they 
I threw away fonts and altars and consequently they 
j have lost that great truth. You will find that there 
I are very few baptisms now comparatively in the 
j Congregational body. Every child of the congre- 
gation, two hundred years ago, was brought to be 
baptized. They took away the font, and you find 
that baptisms are so rare, they do not baptize the 
! children of any except church members now, and in 
I that respect the Baptists have a great advantage over 
I them. And so you find in regard to this other sacra- 
I ment. As administered by them, they invite every- 
I body to it. In the place of worship where I was 
i brought up they had very strong notions two hun- 
dred years ago of the Divine Presence in that sa- 
crament, and the grace to be had by it, but now, 
everybody, men, women and children, are invited 
to come and partake of the elements, and coming 
from Massachusetts, I cannot but appreciate the im- 
portance of a Ritualistic mode of teaching. 

Then with regard to the mode of presenting it. 
I have heard of a certain Celt who came to this 
country, and having been here a few weeks, some 
one said to him, " Pat, you are in a land of liberty; 
are you not happy? Can you not do what you 
like?" Said he, "I can do what I like, but I am. 
not happy; I want to make everybody else do and 
think just as I please. " [Laughter.] I understand 
that is the position of the late Assistant Bishop of 
I Kentucky. He wanted freedom to teach all his 
j doctrines. There was no Canon to hinder him. There 
I was no restraint at all. We gave him the highest post 
j in the Church. We made him Assistant Bishop. 

We sent him forth to preach all his doctrines ; but 
I suddenly he left us. Why ? Could he not preach 



224 



everything he did i! Yes ; but because he could not 
make everybody else think and do just as he thought, 
he went oif . 

Wow, I hope we are not going to puritanize this 
Church, and endeavor to put down laws and rules, 
and endeavor to make these narrow restrictions. I 
glory in this Church, coming to it from a sect, be- 
cause it is the Catholic Church, and there is nothing 
that pleases me more in it, and edifies me more in 
it, than in being associated with persons who differ 
from me in particular points. 

Gentlemen have spoken of extreme Bishops. 
Sir, we had an extreme Bishop in Massachusetts, 
who was my personal friend during the whole time, 
and I owe the greatest obligations to him per- 
sonally. I consider that, if there is any cir- 
cumstance for which I ought devoutly to thank 
G-od, it is that I had for my Bishop, for my 
pastor, and for my personal friend, a man of ex- 
treme opinions, and who differed from me very 
widely in many things ; and much more, I say for 
the pastor of the only Ritualistic church in all New 
England, that I know that Bishop East burn knew 
of its existence, and that Bishop Eastburn was after 
all its principal benefactor by the course he pur- 
sued. I do not think there was a church in all Massa- 
chusetts which parted from its Bishop, when death 
removed him, with so much regret as did that Ri- 
tualistic Church of the Advent. 

Now with regard to this mode of putting down 
and restraining doctrine, I tell you it will not suc- 
ceed. Come to Boston, as I hope you will, and we 
will teach you a little Ritualism. You may ask 
v/hat is the' highest point in Boston. What is that 
spire ? I will tell you it is architecturally known 
as the tooth-pick spire, froju resemblance to that 
instrument : but that is a Baptist meeting-house ; and 
its spire is the highest point in all Boston. 
— you may asli v/ho are the Baptists, and I tell you 
those Baptists are the men whom my ancestors 
flogged with the whip at the cart's tail and drove 
over to Rhode Island, and in Rhode Island they 
have multiplied and grown, and now they have 
come back and occupy the highest, point in Boston. 
I will take you to Cambridge and show you the 
largest place of worship there. It is a stone Bap- 
tist meeting-house in the very school of their 
persecutors, and you will ask, " What 
is this large cathedral ; what are all these 
numerous buildings ? " Those are Roman Catholic 
Churches, Roman Catholic convents and 
schools, and the Roman Catholics are the 
largest denomination in all Boston, and those are 
tlie men whom we would not allow to worship God 
in Boston, and we made them, in all sorts of weather, 
if they wanted to perform the rites of their religion, 
go down twelve miles into the Harbor on an island 
there ; and after all the pains we took, they have 
come isack and ai"e the largest denomination in Bos- 
ton to-day. 

Then, sir, I could teU you a little piece of the his- 
tory of the modern reign of Puritanism. That is the 
way you would deal v/ith Ritaa,lists now. There 
came a Pennsylvania Ritualict into Massachusetts 
about twenty-five yeara ago. He was born and bred 
in Pennsylvania. He was nurtured in Maryland, 
and that, perhaps, is the reason why the Clerical 
Deputy from Maryland is so anxious for 
a Canon on this subject. He came to Massa- 
chusetts, bringing with him a kind of fever 
and ague or malaria from there, and he 
went to a church there, Tiie sign of the cross was 
identified with Popery twenty years ago, and he 
had the great impmdence on Christmas Day to put 
up in the decorations of the church a cross made 
of holly ; and he never entered that church again. 
He was turned out ignominously. The Wardens 
and the Vestry took his robes and put them on a 



wheel-barrow, and got them out the back-door, 
and he was driven away in poverty in the middle 
of winter. Then it was that I made his acquaintance. 
Under such circumstances it was that his wife, the 
, niece of one of the most honored clergymen in this 
Church, the daughter of a former Mayor of Phila- 
delphia, gave birth to a son who lingered only two 
or three years and then died. That wife lived some 
ten or twelve years after, but always a miserable 
invalid. He then undertook a church ministration 
to the seamen and the poor in a certain part of the 
city. We gave him more discipline than that, 
we let him start his church, and after he 
had got it going, and had got a committee of the 
Convention to act on his application, and all was 
going on well, we turned him out. We said he did 
not tell the truth. He was a man who saw things 
with rather a roseate hue. I never knew him to 
complain of this, or to lose heart ; but he was turned 
out from that charge. It did not discourage him. 
He went to work again. His friends supported 
him, and for fifteen or twenty years 
he mmistered most acceptably among the 
poor. He commanded the confidence of Uni- 
tarians and Congregationalists, who gave him 
money. He went about and supported himself on 
the alms of the people ; and when he came to die— 
I was with him at the time — he was so poor that we 
could not find enough decent clothes in his ward- 
robe to bury him ; and yet when he died he left a 
property of thirty-five thousand dollars to his 
church securelv in its hands, so that it is 
now a free church— a church for the poor. 
The church got the benefit of his labor. My friends 
from Peimsylvania, and my friends from MTaryland, 
if you have any more such Ritualists, send them to 
us in Massachusetts, and we can do better with them 
than they can in Connecticut. We always think 
ourselves in Massachusetts a little ahead of Connec- 
ticut. We will take better care of them, and we can 
assure you we will make very good use of them. 

I have only to say in conclusion that with 
, all this experience of trying to drive away 
error from the Church, it is my belief that 
the wheat and the tare should grow up together. 
They will be separated at the end of 
the harvest. It seems to me that the opinion of 
Gamaliel is good in these times, and may be applied 
to Ritualists : "Refrain from these men and let 
them alone, for if this work be of man it will sure- 
ly come to naught." 

Mr. ANDREWS, of Ohio. Mr. President, I pro- 
pose to confine myself entirely to the legal aspects 
of this case, and not to the theological. You will 
observe, gentlemen, that the discussion is very much 
narrowed down. In the first place, under this re- 
port it is limited entirely (and I wish 
to call attention particularly to that fact), 
to the symbolizing of erroneous and 
doubtful doctrine in the administration of the Lord's 
Supper. Gentlemen seem to lose sight of that. I 
want to call attention to that fact at the outset. Now, 
it is admitted on all hands, I am glad it is, that the 
symbolizing of erroneous and doubtful doctrine 
ought to be stopped, and that the Canon to that ex- 
tent is unobjectionable. 

It is admitted, further, by nearly every speaker, 
that the mode of dealing with it which we have in- 
dicated—by the admonition of the Bishop— is the 
right mode. One gentleman, it is true, has said to 
us that he prefers an ecclesiastical trial. Gentlemen, 
do you prefer an ecclesiastical trial ? Do my brethren 
of the bar prefer an ecclesiastical trial ? Nine times 
out of ten in an ecclesiastical trial — you 
know it and I know it — the remedy is worse than 
the disease. The best thing about this Canon is that 
it gets rid of ecclesiastical trials and puts this ques- 
tion in the hands of the Bishops of this Church ; and 



225 



if we are to have any Bishops in this Chnrch, what 
can they deal with if they cannot deal with false 
doctrine 

One gentleman asks, Why do you not let the laity 
make complaint Why is it that you limit the 
right of complaint to Presbyters For this reason ; 
that if any Bishop hesitates to do his duty, there 
can probabl}' be found two Presbyters- in this Di- 
ocese to hold him to it. That is the reason we put 
that in. But do we wish every layman, every man 
that has a crotchet in his head — and the laity have 
crochets in their heads, as you know — ^to be getting 
up and pushing this question in the face of his 
Bishop and his minister every day ? Not at all. 
We put safeguards about that thing. 

There is one other matter that was referred to, 
and it was the meaning of the word "doubtful " in 
the clause as to the Bisliops admonishing for the sjan- 
bohzing of erroneous or doubtful doctrine. The gen- 
tleman from Wisconsin [Rev. Dr. DeKoven] made a 
point on that. He said this word " doubtful " should 
not have been used, that "erroneous and 
strange doctrines" should be pointed at. 
As I undei-stood the connection, the word "doubt- 
ful" here means substantially what the word 
' ' strange " would mean ; and I see no 
appreciable difference between them, and I think 
my brethren of the bar will agree ^vith me. But 
what is it that we aim at ? If a man wishes to 
preach doubtful doctrine in this Church, let him 
preach it like a man, and if I hear it or you hear it, 
let us answer it like men, and " we know 
what we are about ; but this symbolizing of doubt- 
ful doctrine, this insinuating of doubt- 
ful doctrine to men, women, and children 
who are not in the habit of discussing these matters, 
that tends to make a lodgment and tljat you cannot 
answer, is what we aim at. If a man wishes to 
preach doubtful doctrine in this Church, let him do 
it; but let him do it openly by word of mouth and 
not by symbols. I say the word is rightly there. 

I desire to say, gentlemen, that substantially this 
far we are agreed in reference to this Canon, i'hese 
criticisms are minor criticisms. If you agree as to 
the substance of this thing, you are not going to de- 
feat it on any of the grounds to which I have re- 
ferred. They are merely incidental ; they do not 
touch the substance of the mattei*. But now we 
come to a point that needs discussion. It is as to 
the specifications to which gentlemen object 
— incense, the crucifljc, etc. Why, says the gentle- 
man from Wisconsin, incense is a delightful thing; 
there is no harm in incense ; incense means pray- 
er; and he quotes the literal language of the Scrip- 
ture as part of his argument. I might quote the 
literal language of the Scripture as part of my ar- 
gument, if I did not deem it unworthy of this occa- 
sion to attempt to influence this body by it. I 
might say that Jehovah Himself said, under certain 
circumstances, that incense was an abomination to 
Him; but I would not deem that appropriate to this 
argument at aU. 

What is the meaning of incense in connection with 
the administration of the Lord's Supper ? That is 
the point. Incense is external. We deal with an 
indwelling presence in this Church. We do not like 
externalism. Incense is material ; we deal with the 
spiritual. Incense in the Romish Church is used 
in the celebration of the Mass. Why ? Does 
it mean nothing ^ Is the Romish 
Church in the habit of dealing with things that are 
meaningless in its service i What says the voice of 
history ^ What is incense in history i What was 
it among the Greeks and Romans ! It was the local- 
izing of the Divine Presence, before which this act 
of adoration was done. So it is among heathen 
nations, in China to-day. How was it among the 
Jews to whom my friend referred 1 Incense 



i was offered in the Temple. Why ? Because 
the Shekinah was in the Temple. That is the reason. 
It was the localizing of the Divine Presence there. 
This is the point. Now, if in the administration of 
the Holy Commimion incense is used as a part of 
your service, does it not symbolize doubtful doctrine 

' in the Protestant Episcopal Church < That is the 
pc int. 

1 Next as to the crucifix. The gentleman has re- 
ferred to the language of our Saviour : " It is ex- 
i pedient that I should go away ; for if I go not 
away the Comforter will not come ; but if I go 
I away I will send the Comforter to you." "I must 
i go away." Why ^ Because that Spirit cau- 
■ not come while this external presence is here call- 
i ing off the worshipper to the external, even 
though it be the God manifest in Christ I must go 
away. It is expedient that I go away in order that 
! the Spirit may do my work better." Man commu- 
ning vvith God; man walking with God; man be- 
j coming like God — that is the mission of the Spirit 
I to which all the other was preliminary; and it was 
I for our benefit that He withdrew His glorious 
I presence in order that this spiritual presence 
might do its work in the heart of man. Am 
I not right in this ^ But what say these gentlemen ? 
It was expedient that this glorious presence should 
withdraw, but it is expedient that we should put 
within the chancels of oui' churches, in the admin is- 
ti'ation of the Lord's Supper, a caricature of His 
presence ! Tell this Church that that is needed for 
the adoration of its children ! Gentlemen, that will 
not do. 

Now, what is the feeling of this Church through- 
out all the length and breadth of this land in refer- 
ence to these matters. Suppose that this Conven- 
tion, expressly or impliedly, were to give voice to 
the opinion that incense' in the a(Sninistration 
of the Holy Communion is admissible, and 
on Christmas next, throughout all the length 
and breadth of this land, when we come 
forward to the celebration of the Lord's Sup- 
per and present our bodies a living sacrifice holy 
and acceptable unto God, sm-pliced boys enter these 
chancels and wave the censer, what do you suppose 
the effect in this Chm'ch would be ? I ask you, gen- 
tlemen. I do not know what it would be here in 
New York ; I cannot tell : but throughout thi^ 
whole continent west of this city, if that 
one thing was authorized and it was un- 
derstood that this Church had committed 
itseK deliberately to it, I know well that it would 
break up this Church, and this Convention would 
never sit again. You would not have to discuss the 
question whether there could be a Church without 
a Bishop ; but you would have to discuss the ques- 
tion whether there should be Bishops without a 
Church. There is no mistake about this. It may seem 
strange to many living under different influences ; but 
there is no mistake about it. I appeal to my breth- 
ren without any distinction of Church, High or 
Low, and I say here that I have just as much faith 
in my High Church brethren on a question affecting 
the life of this Church as I have in my Low Church 
brethren. 

Well, how is it with authority on this subject .- 
We have the authority of the Committee on Canons 
of the Lower House unanimously, and in the House 
of Bishops we have the authority of the Committee 
on Canons. We have other authority, some of 
which has been read. I Uhink, therefore, on the 
point of authority we stand pretty firm ; but there 
is one legal aspect of this case which I think re- 
lieves it of all possible difficulty, and to that I wish 
to call the attention of my brethren, particularly of 
I the bar. 

j If I understand this matter, suppose that it were 
I found, as is claimed by the gentleman from Wiscon- 



226 



Sin, that we have made a specification here that is 
erroneous and ought not to be here, that incense is 
admissible in this Chiirch in the administration of 
the Holy Communion, and that the crucifix is admis- 
sible in this Church in the administration of the 
Holy Communion, then I ask, gentlemen, what harm 
have we done ? The Bishop to whom this matter ' 
comes says : " "^ou have made a mistake, gentle- 
men ; I cannot interef ere with this matter on ac- 
count of this incense," and he so decides. If he 
decides incorrectly under this Canon, he can be tried 
for not carrying out the provisions of this Canon. 
Then what ? It comes to the House of Bishops, and 
they are called upon judicially to determine the 
constitutionality and legality of this enact- 
ment. What harm is done? Every lawyer 
knows that this happens all the time where a penal 
enactment is decided finally to be unconstitutional, 
and therefore is null. It does no harm ; no man is 
injured. You simply give an opportunity for the 
judicial tribunals to try the question, and if they 
decide it against you, by and by down from 
the House of Bishops comes a message to 
us that they have had before them the 
subject of incense and the subject of the crucifix, 
and that they find that their rise does not symbol- 
ize doubtful doctrines in tiie lil ministration of the 
Lord's Supper at all, and the American Church 
therefore recognize them as part of her instrumen- 
talities. If they tell us that, let us know it. Then 
we will discuss the proposition whether in some 
way we cannot express our sentiments in regard to 
the matter. 

So much in regard to these points that have been 
referred to. Now, gentlemen, it is very strange 
to me that our friends do not know that this Church 
is a Reformed Church, a Church of the English 
Reformation, and that the name " Protestant " is 
a tolerably important matter to us. It is strange 
to me that they do not appreciate this fact. 
Even the Reformers are attacked in this Church. 
They are vilified and ridiculed martyrs, men who 
died for the principle for which we are contend- 
ing to-day are ridicuJed in this Church by men who 
call themselves Protestant Episcopalians ; and I 
think, by these gentlemen, a man is considered a 
demagogue who stands up in a community and says 
one word in favor of Cranmer, Cromwell, and Rid- 
ley, who went to the stake for this Church. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. What Crom- 
well ? Not Oliver i 

Mr. ANDREWS, of Ohio. I mean the Cromwell 
who preceded Latimer, not Oliver Cromwell. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Lord Cromwell, 
the Chancellor of Henry VIII. ? 

Mr. ANDREWS, of Ohio. No, the one who pre- 
ceded Latimer. I am not speaking of Oliver Crom- 
well at all. The gentleman from Illinois told me 
that in Oxford he visited the spot where Cranmer 
died, and he said that he wept when he stood over 
the marble slab that covered the place where 
he suffered. He thought of the tune when the 
name of "Protestant" was given to the English 
Church, and thought of tlie baptism in which that 
name was given, a baptism that deluged a whole 
generation of Churchmen in blood. He stood in 
the presence of history, and when the story was 
brought before his mind he said the tears stood in 
his eyes. Gentlemen, that had a meaning ; it was 
not without a meaning. It looked to the fu- 
ture. When the martyr stepped into his chariot 
of fire, he left his mantle behind him. Free gov- 
ernment, free conscience, freedom of thought — these 
are the treasures we have to-day. This Convention 
meets under the shadow and the protection of these 
principles, for which these men died. Thousands 
upon thousands stand up to-day and say that they 



will be true to these principles, and, if need be, die 
for them. 

I am amazed at the course gentlemen take, consi- 
dering the condition of things in this country. What 
is the condition of things here ? Your professional 
classes, a majority of them — your lawyers, your 
physicians, your successful business classes — have 
the clergy much influence over them ? I put it to 
you — have you much influence over them as a class ? 
Are not the vast majority of them out of your 
reach ? Your educated young men that 
come out of your colleges, have you much 
influence over them ? Are they not drifting to 
indifferentism ? The populations of your cities, how 
many of them attend upon your services ? On 
an average not one-fifth are within the range of 
the clergy probably. These are serious matters. 
Sidney Smith said that the clergy of the 
Church of England had not more influence over 
the people of England than the cheese-mongers 
of England. That was an exaggerated state- 
ment there, and it would be here ; but the in- 
fluence of the clergy has been reduced in this 
covmtry very much. It is certainly at a very 
low point, and it is doubtful whether it is in- 
creasing, and yet I am inclined to think it is. 
The classes to which I have referred seem to be 
taking scientific truth rather than theological truth 
for their guide. 

When things are in this condition, when this coun- 
try is in such a state as this, and these gentlemen 
stand in the presence of this civilization of ours and 
undertake to deal with this people, what do they 
say ? Why, they stand up in the presence of 
all these difficulties, and they say, " What you 
need for the Church is a little picture- 
teaching, fust as we give to our children." 
They put their hand on the pulse of this continent, 
and they feel it beating, beating, beating with in- 
cessancy with its current of wonderful life, and they 
say the only thing necessary is to give the people a 
few more types and symbols and all will be well ! 
That does not amaze me. Have these gentlemen 
read history ? Did not the Jews have types and 
symbols ? Did they not have Divine types and sym- 
bols ? Every day when the lamb was sacrificed for 
a thousand years did it not typify the Great Sacri- 
fice 'i Was it not intended to teach them that when 
the Lamb of God came they should know him ? And 
yet when He came they knew Him not and crucified 
Him. What was the effect on the character of the 
people of types and symbols ? We know very well 
what it was. They were Scribes and Pharisees—- 
hypocrites. 

Gentlemen, I have but a few more words to say. 
It has been supposed that this Church had no con- 
victions on this subject. That is a great mistake. 
It has been supposed that this Church had no con- 
victions because tins Church is not swift to mark 
what is done, because sentence upon an evil work is 
not executed speedily, because this Church is pa- 
tient, long-suffering, gentle. On one side of the 
line we have men leaving us, and people say, " You 
are drifting into Popery ; you are indifferent to 
it." On the other end of the line men say, 
"We introduce what services and practices we 
please into the administration of the Lord's Supper, 
and the General Convention does not rebuke us, 
I and the Bishops are silent." Therefore men infer 
j that we have no convictions on this subject. Now, 
I gentlemen, I appeal to you, have we not made up 
j our minds on this subject ; have we not as a Church 
made up our minds that the evil at which this Canon 
aims shall cease ? I think we have. I do not 
mean that this Canon in your judgment is 
entirely perfect. Every man must judge for him- 
self whether this method is the best ; but the fact I 
do say I beheve is uudoubted that you have made up 



227 



TOlU' minds at all hazards that the evil aimed at in this 
Canon shall cease. Now, whether the Canon is wise 
or not, Ton have the authority, as I have said, of 
the Committee on Canons T you must judge for 
yourselves : but I do trust that you will come to the 
conclusion that the Canon is proper, and that this 
Church will this day put its seal of condemnation 
upon an evil that is at war \vit]i its whole historv. 

Rev. Mr. BOLTON, of Penns vlvania . I offer this 
resolution as a substitute for all that is before the 
House : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concuiTing), That 
the follo^\dng additional section be added to Canon 
20, Title I., 'Of the Use of the Book of Common 
Prayer. ' 

"Section 2. [1.] K any Bishop have reason to be- 
lieve that ceremonies or practices during the cele- 
bration of the Holy Communion, or any other time 
during the celebration of Divine Service, not or- 
(tained or authorized by the Book of Common Prayer, 
and setting forth or syinbolizing erroneous" or 
strange doctrines, have been introduced into a parish 
within his jiu'isdiction, to wit : 

" o. The use of incense. 

" b. The placing or carrying or retaining a cruci- 
fix in any parti ciilar place"^of worship. 

" c. The elevation of the elements in the Holy Com- 
munion in such a manner as to expose them"^ to the 
view of the people as objects towards which adora- 
tion is to be made. 

" rf. Bowings, prostrations, genuflexions and all 
such like acts, not authorized or allowed by the 
Rubrics of the Book ot Common Prayer. 

" e. The use of private confession otheinvise than is 
allowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Common 
Prayer. 

"7. Prayers addressed to the Virgin Mary. 

" g. Prayere for the dead. 

The use of vestments other than the cassock, 
sui-plice, and stole and bands, and the black gown, 
with the Oxford cap. 

" It shall be the duty of such Bishop to summon 
the Standing Committee as his council of advice, 
and with them to investigate the matter. 

"[2.] If, after investigation, it shall appear to the 
Bisnopand the Standing Committee that erroneous 
or doubtful doctrines have been in fact set forth or 
symbolized by ceremonies or practices not ordained 
or authorized as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the 
Bishop, by instrmnent of writing under his liand. to 
a lmonish the minister of the parish to discontinue 
such practices or ceremonies; and if the minister 
shall disregard such admonition, it shall be the duty 
of the Standing Committee to cause him to be tried 
for a breach of his ordination vow : Provided, That 
nothing herein contained shaU prevent the present- 
ment, trial, and punishment of any minister under 
the provisions of Section 1, of Canon 2, Title II., of 
the Digest. 

"[3.] In all investigations under the provisions ot" 
this Canon, the minister whose acts or practices are 
the subject-matter of the investigation shall be noti- 
fied, and have opportunity to be heard in his de- 
fence. The charges preferred and the flLndings of 
the Bishop and Standing Committee shall be in 
writing, and a record shall be kept of the proceed- 
ings in the case." 

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman offer that 
as an amendment ^ 

Rev. Mr. BOLTON, of Pennsylvania. As a sub- 
stitute for the Canon and the amendments already 
proposed to it. 

It seems to me that the difl3culty here is that this 
Committee had something that they felt verv veno- 
mous in their hand, and they concluded that the 
best way to deal with it was to take hold of it by 
one of its extremities. I think it would have been 
far better if they had grasped it at once by the main 



body, and then it would have been less likely to 
sting in return. 

You will observe that the reverend gentleman 
from Wisconsin, in his amendment, proposed to 
leave out the two Presb^-ters. In that, I think, he is 
right. Then he suggested to leave out "doubtful 
doctrines," and instead to put in "strange doc- 
trines." I have done that in my amendment. Then, 
in addition to what the Committee have reported, I 
introduce "the use of the private confession, other- 
wise than as allowed by the Rubrics of the 
Book of Common Prayer ; prayers addressed 
to the Virgin Mary ; prayers for the dead ; the use 
of vestments other than the cassock, surplice, stole 
and band, and the black gown and Oxford cap." 

The reverend gentleman who addressed us yester- 
day, and whom this proposition of course does not 
touch, though he is thought to be a representative 
man in this case, seems to think that legis- 
lation on this subject is a very cruel thing, 
that we are going to offer up a sacrifice 
here, and that he is to be the lamb. Now I think 
we love him too much for that. I do not believe 
there is a man in this House, who heard his noble re- 
marks yesterday afternoon, whose heart was not 
touched, and ^Yho did not feel that he would 
not do him injustice for all the world. 
No, sir, we do not propose to take away 
from any gentleman anything that we are not 
going to take away from ourselves. We are going 
to put him on precisely the same plane that we are 
ourselves. We are going to say to him, "You shall 
do exactly what we do." More than that, we are 
not going"^ to take away from him Ritual. We are 
going to leave him that almost untouched. He can 
have as fine a church as he chooses. He can 
have as fine music as he chooses. He can 
have a surpliced choir if he chooses. He can 
ha ve anything and everything that is legitimate to 
a Protestant Church ; and we do not intend to take 
it from him. What we propose to do is to take 
care of him. He is too good a man not to be looked 
after. [Laughter.] Ah, sir, the difficulty is that he 
has got astray ; we see it, and we know it, and we 
deplore his errors, though they may be on the side of 
reverence and devotion. Seeing all this, we want to 
take temptation out of his way. That is it. We do 
not propose to take anything from these Ritualists 
that they ought to have. We will allow that gen- 
tleman in Boston, the Rev. Mr. Grafton, the rector 
of the gentleman who addressed us yesterday" and 
to-day, to preach even that hell-fire that the 
gentleman talked of, if he consider it neces- 
sary to the preaching of the Gospel, which is peace 
and good-will to men, glad tidings of great joy to 
all people. We are not going to take away from these 
gentlemen the oppoi-timitv they talk about of work- 
ing for the poor, for which they are deservedly held 
in honor. We are going to give them every oppor- 
tunity to bring the poor into their churches, to give 
them"^a handsome Ritual if they choose ; but if that 
gentleman has been preaching so much hell-fire, I 
do not wonder that he needed a great deal of Ritual 
to counteract that. I woidd say. have a little less of 
that and then you will need a little less of Ritual. 
[Laughter. ] 

It seems to me, sir, that we ought to deal 
with the matter in a conma on -sense way. 
Here we are, men representing the Church all over 
this land, and every man here feels, somehow or 
other, that this is the most important matter rest- 
ing on his conscience and entrusted to his care. 

Now, I propose simply to take away just two or 
three obstructions out of the way, that I think it 
very important before this discussion proceeds fur- 
ther should be done. And firet as to this matter of 
Ritualism. We are all Ritualists in one sense. 
There is not a man in this House, I am sure, that is 



228 



not a Ritualist, who does not love to see God's house 
what it ought to be, who does not love to hear music 
as good as we have here, if it can be had. Who does 
not love to have everything that adds to the sacred- 
ness of worship and helps him to lift his heart to 
God therein It is not Ritualism — that is a very un- 
fortunate name — it is Romanism that we are trying 
to get rid of ; and we may as well understand it and 
call things by their right names. It is not Ritualism ; 
it is Romanism. 

Another thing in the same direction I desire to get 
out of the way. I think it is very wrong that these 

fentlemen should lie called "Advanced Churchmen." 
never in mj life supposed that a man who was go- 
ing back, retrograding, was a man who was leading 
in the advance. No, sir; if there be an advanced 
party in the Church to-day, I contend that it 
is the Broad Church party, who, when they shall 
p-et to be as broad as they are deep, will lead the 
Church on a path where Catholicity will be practi- 
cal and Christian unity will be possible. 

But now, sir, let us come to a simple common- 
sense view of the case. I take it that I state what 
is plainly evident when I say that Protestantism and 
Romanism are two absolutely different things : that 
when at the Reformation the Protestants sep- 
arated from the Romanists, they did hke the 
Egyptians passing out of Egypt, passing through 
the Red Sea, and, being baptized in blood, came out 
with that name of Protestants. There is, therefore, 
a wall built up between the two — a wall that is 
growing broader, and stronger, and deeper, and 
higher every day, for, depend upon it, the division 
between Protestantism and Romanism is getting 
stronger every day in spite of all the things we 
hear. That wall is far higher to-day than it was in 
the days of the Reformation. That wall stands be- 
tween Protestantism and Romanism an impassable 
barrier, erected there by the common sense of man- 
kind. Romanism feels that it is there and knows it. 
Protestantism feels that it is there and knows it. 
But now, what do we find ? We find these men en- 
deavoring to pull that wall down. We find them 
to-day on this side, and to-morrow on that; now 
a Protestant, now performing Roman Catholic 
rites. It puts me in mind of a story of a young col- 
legian at Cambridge, in England, I think it was one 
who was well posted up in Greek and Latin, but 
Avho had not paid much attention to natural science ; 
and upon his examination he was asked whether the 
Sim moved around the earth, or whether the earth 
moved around the sun ; and being somewhat em- 
barrassed, he replied that it was sometimes one and 
sometimes the other. [Laughter.] That is the con- 
dition of these gentlemen. 

At the Reformation, what was it ? Did the Re- 
formers object only to the abuses of Romanism i — 
for that is what these gentlemen seem to think. 
No, sir ; it was to the uses ; it was to the root of 
the tree that bore these fruits ; and there is where I 
think this Committee so lamentably fail : they do 
not go to the root of the matter, but are willing to 
take one of the extremities. Was it simply 
the selling of indulgences, for instance, that the 
Reformers objected to ? No, sir, it was 
the underlying Confessional and the under- 
lying thing at the root of that, which was priest- 
craft in the Church of Rome. Happily the Refor- 
mation divided upon that point. Rome held her 
priestcraft; Protestantism took her ministers. In 
no sense can one of her ministers be called a priest 
in the sense of the Church of Rome ; and you know 
very well that our office of Presbyter- does not mean 
any such thing. No, sir; we have the Presbyter; 
the Church of Rome has the sacrificing priest. The 
Presbyter simply points the sinner to the 
Saviour; clears every obstruction from his 
path, but in no way undertakes to stand I 



between the Saviour, and obstruct the ^ay of the 
sinner to him. The reformers objected not only to 
the abuses, but to the root of the thing. So here go 
down to the root, and what do you find ? You find 
chat this matter of priest-craft' is the very root of 
the whole evil. These gentlemen do not seem to be 
very logical. That good brother who spoke yester- 
day afternoon seemed to be in a profound mist, 
from which I think it should be the good 
office of us, his Christian brethren, to bring 
him out into the daylight, to bring him out 
from that tabernacle which he talked about, up into 
Che Church of the living God ; to bring him out of 
the darkness of the old dispensation into the sun- 
shine of God's free grace. Therefore, I contend that 
the Episcopal Church has no priest in the sense of a 
sacrificing priest, and that is what the word defines it 
to be. We have no priests in that sense ; neither have 
we any altar in the sense of an altar whereon a sacri- 
fice is made. How can you make an altar of a table ? 
And yet it is the table that is to be covered with 
a fair linen cloth. The sacrifice, as the good brother 
was ingenuous enough to say here yesterday after- 
noon, was one of praise and thanksgiving. Yes, 
that is it ; and that is all it is. 

Now, sir, if the Committee had taken hold of this 
thing in the sense in which the conscience of this 
Church understands it — for I tell you they are all 
alive to it — there would have been no difficulty ; 
we should gladly have taken their .Canon. 
But it does not deal with it ; it blinks 
the matter, and when it shall go out to the world, 
there will be a general feeling of dissatisfaction. 
The people will ask, " Is that all you can do, in view 
of the dreadful condition in which the Church has 
been thought to be liable to lapse ^ " Let me read 
from a book that is put into the hands of young peo 
pie now to prepare for the Lord's Supper, printed 
in this very city in this very year. I read 
from the "Rules for the Guidance of Communi- 
cants : " 

"At the Prayer of Consecration commences the 
most solemn part of the Office. Up to this point 
Christ is not objectively present, but at the words, 
'This is my body' — 'This is my blood,' Christ is 
really present upon the altar, under the form of 
Bread and Wine. Then the Faithful should bow in 
reverent adoration before their Lord 

"Remember" — it goes on — "we are then in the 
immediate Presence of our Lord, as truly present as 
He is in heaven, only that there He will be seen 
without the Sacramental Veil. " 

Then it goes on to state the order in which those 
present shall commune, and one thing most aston- 
ishing in that the men, it is said, shall communicate 
separately from the women. Then it proceeds : 

" In going up to Communion genuflect as you 
reach the Chancel. If then the rail is full, kneel on 
the floor till there is a vacant place. . . . On 
taking your place at the rail kneel on the appointed 
step or cushion, and upright. 

" Receive the Lord's Body upon the palm of your 
right hand crossed over your left so as to make a 
kind of throne for it, and so reverently raise it to 
your mouth. Be careful to examine your hand 
lest any fragment remain therein, in which case 
you must take it up with your tongue, since every 
particle contains equally the whole body of your 
Lord, and, as St. Cyril says, ' How carefully ought- 
est thou to observe that not a crumb falls from thee 
of that which is more precious than gold and pre- 
cious stones ! ' " 

That is enough. In view of that, I think that this 
proposed Canon of the Committee goes only half 
way. Why should we not deal with this thing as 
honest men — as men of common sense, who 
know what is the fact out of doors, who 
Imow the scandal that has come upon the 



229 



Church, who know that the Protestant com- 
munity are in doubt whether we are thoroughly 
Protestant or not ' I say, sir, it is time for the Gen- 
eral Convention to speak, and to speak plainly, so 
that they cannot be misunderstood, and T, for one, 
should be ashamed to go back from this General 
Convention carrying in my hand only such a Canon 
as that reported by our Committee. 

But I do not intend to express at all the idea 
that I fear that the Protestant Episcopal 
Church is to be Romanized. I do not believe a word 
of it. You never can persuade me that such a body 
of intelligent people as compose the Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America are ever 
going to be Romanized No, sir ; but they will be 
greatly scandalized ; the Cburch will be retarded in 
her progress ; she will lose the prestige with which 
she started upon her wa^- ; and it only needs 
for this Church to place herself unmistak- 
ably, emphatically upon plain Protestant 
ground, that every man in this community can 
understand, for her to march forth as an army with 
banners, and when she shall have got the true idea 
of her mission that she is one who is to simply de- 
clare the tmth as it is in Jesus, lea ving the widest 
possible range of opinion, requiring nothing of any 
man to believe but the Creed— when she shall have 
done that within the bounds of Protestantism, then 
she will have opened wide her doors, and multitudes 
from other communions will press in, and not before ; 
and that day is coming. 

I do not think it practicably any objection to the 
Protestant Episcopal Church that all this difficulty 
arises in it. Why does it arise here and not in other 
denominations ? I fancy, in the fii'st place, it is be- 
cause this Church is composed of such very intelli- 
gent men, so thoughtful, so enquiring, and "that this 
Church is wide enough for a man to entertain any 
honest opinion and to urge it, and that it is a place 
of such liberty that no man who is a Protestant and 
holds to Protestant doctrine but has a place here — 

The PRESIDENT. The time of the Deputy from 
Pennsvlvania has expired. 

Rev" Dr. BEERS, of Albany. Mr. President and 
gentlemen of the Convention, it was not my pur- 
pose when the Canon reported by the Committee 
came before the House to ask your attention to any 
observation, because I did not intend to make any ; 
but as the discussion has proceeded, it has seemed 
to me very plain that this is entirely an open ques- 
tion, and not a party question at all ; that the shape 
it assumes before the House to-day is simply this : Is 
it policy on the part of this Church to have any le- 
gislation at all on this question i If it is policy 
on the part of this Church to legislate on 
Ritual, is the Canon reported by the Committee on 
Canons, or the amendment offered by the Clerical 
Deputy from Wisconsin, or the substitute on amend- 
ment just offered by the clerical gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, the proper legislation to have ? I am 
not going to enter minutely into a discussion of the 
Canon, for I am free to say that it seems to me to 
embody an anxious, brotherlj^ kindly feeling, as it 
respects differences in the minds of the members of 
this House on the question of legislating against 
Ritualism. I give the Committee on Canons | 
the credit of having prayed and thought 
earnestly over the question, and of having 
brought in a result that, whether we object to or ap- 
prove it, whether we vote it up or vote it down, is i 
assuredly a monument of the good-will and brother- 
ly feeling existing in the Committee on Canons. 
And I am happy and rejoice in the conviction and 
belief that that same feeling pervades this Hou?e, 
that a most delightful spirit of brotherly kindness 
has exhibited itself from the beginning of this ses- 
sion down to the present time, and especially was it ' 
manifested in that most exciting discussion which ! 



I absorbed the attention of the House during eight 
i days. 

I So that, free from embarrassment, I come to the 
consideration of the Canon before us, and will give 
some reasons why, on the whole, not founded in 
i this or that objection, in my deliberate judgment it 
j will not be wise for this General Convention to leg- 
I islate on Ritual at all ; but if anything is done by 
! this House, I believe it should be a carefully, wisely, 
I prudently drawn joint resolution, that declares 
I what is true ; that declares what may not fairly be 
j questioned ; that negatively, but absolutely and 
; clearlj-, this Church "in her office for the celebra- 
tion of the Holy Communion has excluded the 
idea of Eucharistic adoration. By lajing down 
whatever the priest has a right to do in that 
office, negatively, as I say, yet clearly, has she ex- 
cluded all right to symbolize what she has not in- 
corporated in the office itself; and I hold that, with- 
out a line of legislation on the subject, a Bishop of 
this Church, without his Standing Committee or with 
\ it, can call to account any Presbyter who, in the 
celebration of the holy offices, interjects or interpo- 
lates or symbolizes by any act a view of the sacra- 
ment which she does not hold. In the exercise 
of her power of ordination, she has ordained 
and commissioned him and placed him 
there as her agent and servant under the 
great Head of the Church, and she has the right to 
limit and restrain him m the exercise of the office. 
I I quite agree with a brother who has gone before 
me as it respects the difference between symbolizing 
a doctrine and preaching it. There is a distinction, 
and the distinction is fairly taken. 

The first objection to the" form of legislation pro- 
posed here is its doubtful constitutionahty. I will not 
discuss it ; I merely say that there is a shadow of dou bt, 
to say the very least, hanging over the right of this 
House to touch the question of ceremonial on the 
Administration of the Sacrament, except by Rubric, 
and that requires action on the part of tliis House, 
and concurrent action on the part of the Dioceses, 
and final action of the Convention that shall assem- 
ble in 1877. 

The next point is this : I can understand liow. in 
the interest of practical work, we might be justified 
in overloading a Canon or straining the Constitu- 
tion ; but I cannot understand how we are justified, 
where there is the shadow of a doubt hanging over 
our right to act owing to constitutional difficulties, 
in pressing this right to act in the interest of re- 
strictive or repressive legislation. 

The next question I raise is. Is legislation necessa- 
ry ? And I wish to be absolutely fair. I w^ould 
not press this point with an ounce weight of press- 
ure did I not believe it to be the simple truth, and if 
true, something that ought to guide us in our de- 
liberations and conclusions. Does the present con- 
dition of the Church in New York, in Connecticut, 
in all the Dioceses of the original jurisdiction 
of New York, generally over the land de- 
mand a remedy that can " be provided only by 
Canon ? If reniedy is needed (and I can understand 
that there may be occasion for a remedj^), I will not 
undertake to say that in the city where we are as- 
sembled a remedy should not be applied in some 
instances — of that I cannot judge ; let the authori- 
ties judge — but if a remedy is demanded, 
does not the remedy already exist in the Rubrics 
and directions of the Prayer-Book itself ? Does this 
Canon do anjrthing more ? I wish to speak with 
all respect of every member of the Upper House, 
and yet permit me to ask the question, Does 
the Canon do more than what I have heard 
in personal conversation it was intended 
to do — put back-bone into the Bishops, that 
they may exercise the powers already held by 
them — committed to them to be exercised in the 



230 



Church ? Is that the business of this house ? Is that 
the legitimate object of legislation ? If a remedy 
exist, let the remedy be applied. 

The next point I take is, that if the remedy which 
already exists is not applied, it grows out of a con- 
dition "of things that will not be changed by this 
legislation. Now, suppose there is a want of nerve 
— or I will go further, and suppose that, from con- 
siderations of pohcj^, the Bishops are not inclined to 
enquire too curiously into every eccentricity 
exhibited by a clergyman in the celebration 
of Holy Communion — will the enactment of 
this Canon make any difference what- 
ever ? I trow not. It will not remedy it at all. 
And there is this diflBculty that I wish to direct your 
"Jittention to, for it is founded on principles that un- 
derlie all legislation : that there can be no greater 
evil under the sun, as it respects generating or de- 
stroying respect for lav/, than multiplying legisla- 
tion that proves ineffectual and that is not likely to 
be applied. It familiarizes the mind of the people 
with the notion that the whole thing is a dead-letter, 
and that self-will instead of written law, or the will 
of committees intead of written law, is to be the 
governing principle in our action. 

So, then, unless the legislation is called for, unless 
the legislation proposed is likely to accomplish the 
result, unless the legislation proposed is likely to be 
a-pplied practically, it seems to me of doubtful ex- 
pediency to pass the legislation. 

We have all been struck with one thing in the 
course of this discussion: that the Canon proposed 
does not give as much as the anti-Ritua,lists want, 
and it gives more than the Ritualists desire ; and 
that is a good sign in its favor. As I said, the ori- 
ginal report of the Committee on Canons, if we are 
to have a,ny legislation on Ritual, would be the re- 
port which would get my most hearty suffrages and 
vote. 

Now, I wish to speak (and it seems to me to be 
germane to the general question) of another aspect, 
and it is this : Considering the proportions of duty, 
on the part of this great House, representing, as it 
does, the Church which, under God, has the care of 
nearly fifty millions of people, that has in trust the 
f Gospel of the Son of God, appointed for 
the salvation of a people who represent 
as many languages and tongues as were repre- 
sented on the day of Pentecost; the Church which 
has in charge the Gospel of the Son of God, not to 
send it with its missionaries to the remotest lands 
and tribes, but v/ho, strangely, in the providence of 
God, has more fragments of tribes and nations and 
peoples cut up from the beds where 
they have rested, and precipitated on to this 
Church, given into our hands to teach and 
to train and to save them — considering all this, I ask 
whether it is wise in this Chiuxh in her General 
Council to give so much time to so little and incon- 
siderable a question as whether there may be incense 
burned in a church or a crucifix placed 
anywhere in it ? And here I accom- 
panied with great interest the Lay Deputy 
from Ohio (Mr. Andrews) who spoke so ably, as 
he always does on every question, up to this very 
point, and there we parted ways. I agreed with 
him that the people of this land looked to the Church 
and expected great things of her. I agreed with 
him in the impression that had been made upon his 
mind as it respects the infidelity whose tidal wave 
to-day makes the heart of Christian men and Chris- 
tian ministers quake, whose ground-swell tosses the 
ark of God hither and thither all over this and other 
lands. I agreed with him when he said that these 
men, with an ability which almost implied that 
they had plucked the tree of knowledge, demanded 
something at the hands of the Church. And what 
does the Church propose to give them in reply by 



the action of her great Council ? There shall be no 
incense burned in any of our churches I There 
shall no crucifix be set up in any of our churches ! 
Is this the answer to be given i- Darkness uni 
versal has settled like a morning fog over 
the map of Christendom, blotting out not only the 
tallest mountains, but hiding the valleys of the 
faith ; and we answer with alittle Canon about an 
unimportant practical thing ! We are bewildered 
by the plausible generahzations of Buckle. Prof. 
Tyndall, with a verbal fehcity that lingers on like 
music to bewilder and allure the hearts of the unsta- 
ble, with his evoi'dtion of force; and Strauss, with his 
" Universum," ha.ve gone far to deny or confuse 
the popular idea of God; and Darwin, in his " Origin 
of the Species," has led many Christians to doubt 
whether the human race is an oyster-bed or a mon- 
key-show. And we answer the argument with 
an attempt at legislating about a little matter 
of ceremonial ! I say that the true answer 
cannot be given without toleration and liberty. I 
do not mean toleration as a concession at all ; I mean 
it as the great duty of the Church, as the right of 
every minster in it. I say the great answer is hearty, 
earnest, self-sacrificing work. When John in pri- 
son heard of the works that Christ had done, he 
sent his disciples and asked the question — and it is a 
significant one—" Art thou He that should come, or 
look we for another ?" What was the answer i "Go 
tell John those things that you do see and hear. The 
deaf hear; the lame walk;' the lepers a,re cleansed, 
and the poor have the Gospel preached unto them. 
And blessed is he who soever shall not be offended 
in me. " 

Now, gentlemen, as I said, this is a question of 
liberty as far as liberty is compatible with the in- 
tegrity of the Church ; and I beg you carefully to 
discriminate between the great Creeds and the 
constmction of the Creeds by an individual ; the 
great Creeds and the view of them held by Vir- 
ginia or Albany, by Maine or Texas, by California 
or New York — that it is essential to the vitality, to 
the energy, to the success of the Church that the 
great Creeds should be the only touchstones of 
orthodoxy and discipline. Accepting these, let the 
Church work with ceremonial or without, as she 
best can. With these, let the Church work with 
vestments or without, as she can. 

It seems to me that the great want of the Church 
in this land, to-day, is, in some sort, a careful rein- 
vestigation of her modes of work. She ought to 
hold out encouragement to all forms of true enthu- 
siasm and love for Christ. If it is a Ritualistic mode, 
go in God's name and work for the sake of souls and 
for the sake of Christ. If it is the lowest church- 
man that ever breathed for his soul's health and 
comfort the vital air of our Communion, let him go 
in God's name, and v/ork for the honor of the Saviour 
and the Lord, and for the salvation of souls. 

As I said, I am not at all strenuous as to the ques- 
tion beyond this, that clear in my prof oundest con- 
victions, I am satisfied that no such state of things 
exists in the Church, at least I have waited in vain 
for any evidence to be brought before this House 
that there is any such state of things existing as calls 
for this legislation. There are fewer strictly pro- 
nounced Ritualistic churches in the United States 
now than there were in 1871. Whatever is evil, 
whatever is objectionable, whatever is obnoxious 
about this thing called Ritual is, on the whole, on the 
wane ; perhaps through the good judgment and good 
feeling of the Ritualists themselves ; perhaps through 
the pressure of pubhc opinion; but this great Church 
of ours clearly, beyond any question whatever, is 
not to-day, and has never been, in sympathy — it 
cannot be for at least generations to come, we 
know not what will be brought about by time — in 
sympathy with what is laiown as extreme Ritualism. 



231 



But there are people who like it; and because my 
brother who preceded me does not choose 
to use the seasoning of salt in his 
food, he says that we are as fair with 
you as we are with ourselves; we take 
from oiirselves what we take from 5'ou. Speaking 
to the Ritualist, as he does not like salt, he takes 
away salt from his brother who does use it and 
thinks he relishes his food and digests it better for 
the seasoning. 

There is just one point moie that I desire to make 
before I sit down. Is it not worth while to stop 
and think a little as it respects the kind of legislation 
that is proposed ^ We have a Joint Committee 
on Intercommunion with the Greek Church. Is it 
a wise thing to do this without any practical rea- 
son, because I know of but one oi- two churches in 
America (and I have enquired carefully) where in- 
cense was ever burned; and I am told that in those 
perhaps not more than once a year. I say nothing 
upon " it ; I do not care a straw about 
it, or any Ritual that is touched in this Canon or 
was ever proposed to be touched in any General 
Convention. It would not come within a thousand 
miles of reaching anything that I ever did or ever 
desired to do in the celebration of the Holy Com- 
munion ; but I state the fact, and it is entitled 
to consideration, that the Greek Church, with 
whom we are trying to feel the vvay to an 
interconmiunion tlu-ough a joint committee, does 
buin incense. Is it wise in us without a reason — if 
there was any real reason for it, a real good to be 
accomplished by it, it would be worth while, and I 
would go for it — but without any real pressing rea- 
son is it worth while for this Church, not in a Dio- 
cesan Convention, not in a vestry meeting, not in 
some neighborhood office, but in her Great Council, 
as though it involved a great essential or lead- 
ing principle, to say that that symbolizes 
false doctrine So of the Lutheran Church. And 
the same is true of the use of the crucifix. I think i 
it a very harmless thing. I never saw one in a 
church, and I do not suppose I ever shaU. My | 
tastes and feelings do not rim that way. I am \ 
very sor y to say that my besetting sin is not over- j 
devotion, as that it seems some men upon the floor ■ 
of this House is ; and so I care nothing for these j 
things m3^self, but I can understand that there are 
others who might care for them. But on the sup- ! 
position that nobody ever did or ever would care | 
for them, it seems to me a mistaken attitude for 
this Church to present, to place her finger upon in- 
cense burning and the crucifix, as something that 
she stamps with condemnation under all the solemn 
responsibilities of Convention in General Council, 
through the learning, and zeal, and piety of her 
Bishops, and clergy, and laity ; that she 
deliberately descends from the high work that 
should occupy her heart, engaged in trying to give 
the Gospel to the whole land — to the question of in- 
cense and the ci"ucifix, and goes out to the constitu- 
ents I'epresented in this General Convention, carry- ; 
ing these as trophies of a three weeks' conclave — as 
the hatchmg of a thi ee v/eeks' incubation. We have i 
ansvv eied everything, and the course of the Church j 
is clear ; now, having condeimied these things that do : 
not exist in her midst at all, ha v ing condemned these ' 
things that nobody cares anything about, she is 
henceforth to be fair as the moon, clear as the sun, i 
and terrible as an army with banners. | 

Rtv. Dr. GARRETT, of Nebraska. Mr. Presi- \ 
dent and gentlemen of the Convention, I am pro- 
f oimdly thankful that we have amongst us here as 
representatives of this Church so Lirge a body of I 
the laity who are so well quaUfied to hold us erratic i 
clergymen to the point in argument and to the pro- 
per business in duty. I feel that the privilege of 
listening to their logical disquisitions is itself ! 
worthy of a journey of over a thousand [ 



j miles. I feel that the Church itself is entitled to 
high honor because she has recognized the principle 
' of the first Apostolic Council of having not only the 
I Apostles and the Elders, but the brethren, to aid in 
her great woi'k of legislation for future ages. And 
I feel, in addition, that it is important 
because the laity are so large a body in 
I the country to which we are specially 
j sent, a body to whom we are commissioned to min- 
, ister, and whose sympathy and whose prayer, 
i whose zeal and whose contiibution, are absolutely 
j imperatively necessary to the advancement am] 

growth of the work we have in hand. 
1 Now, sir, I submit that there is a necessity for 
'\ legislation on this question. I submit it first Le- 
I cause the joint resolution of this House and the other, 
as placed upon the records of the last Conventiori 
as a method for the amendment of our trouble, 
which has been referred to by the speaker who has 
just preceded me, has notoriously failed to give tlie 
peace and to give the agreement which we ail 
desire. Therefore, I say that any such measure as 
that of a mere joint resolution, which recognizes the 
authority of the Episcopate, but does not give them 
power to enforce it, is not sufficient in order to the 
accomplishment of our purpose. 

Again, I hold that some legislation is necessary on 
this question, because of the anxiety which pre- 
vails throughout the length and breadth of "the 
land ; an anxiety which is borne witness to by the 
numerous petitions, by the tone and character of 
the memorials, by the report of your Committee 
on Canons, and by the patience with which 
this House has listened to the debates upon 
this question. It is impossible, therefore, 
to ignore the existence of that anxiety ; 
and I feel, consequently, that it is our imperative 
duty to meet the demands of that anxietv, and to 
satisfy its rightful and legitimate claims' upon us, 
and that, when we are so legislating as to satisfj- 
that anxiety, we are not dealing with trivialities, but 
we are dealing with, the very principles that he at 
the foundation of our hopes for the growth and ad 
vancement of this great Church in this new land. 

And, sir, I feel further that we are called upon to 
legislate upon this question, because, confessedly, 
I am afraid it must be admitted these Ritualists 
(whether intentionally or unintentiouallv T do not 
for a moment pretend to say) are to some extent, if 
not to a large extent, hinderers of the Church's work ; 
and when 1 make that statement I make a strong 
statement, and one which I suppose w ill be contra- 
dicted, if it is possible to have it contradicted, but I 
maintain it against all comers, v/ithout fear of 
successful refutation. I have hstened here for days 
to the remarks that have been made about the 
glorious way in which these Ritualists have preached 
the Gospel to the poor, and you have been called 
upon repeatedly to endorse them; or if you have 
not been called on to endorse them, you have beeji 
called upoir at least to connive at theiri. because of 
their good works in thus preaching the Gos 
pel to the poor. I claim, sir, that there is no 
monopoly of devotion, of self-sacrifice, of 
zeal, or of desire to preach the Gospel to the poor in 
any branch, or side, or shade, or color, or faction, 
of this Church. There is a miiversal desire to preach 
the Gospel to the poor-, and we will not admit that 
there is a monopoly of that desire possessed by the 
party that are at present befor^e ns. Whatever may 
be the case with you here, where sinners are plenti ■ 
ful and the raw material is abundant, and therefore 
one, or two, or three, or a dozen, as far as 
I know, Ritualistic churches may be very useful 
ui overtaking some of the work which aU the 
other organizations of a rehgious kind in this 
great city cannot reach, in the newer portion of the 
coimtry, where men are not led by show, nor go- 
verned by virtue, nor educated and trained success- 



232 



fully, at least the most intelligent of them, by any 
system of symbolism, there to a ver great extent 
we find that the evil meets us in the face ; for what 
is our work in that place ? We are sent to the coun- 
try to preach the Gospel of peace, to heal the 
wounded of a sectarian and divided Chris- 
tendom, to bring back to the primitive and 
Apostolic faith and Church the thousands 
coming into that land who have no religi- 
ous home and no religious bond, driven hither 
and thither at the mercy of the winds and waves of 
contending sentiments, infidel literature, and infidel 
lectui-ers — persons who have no home and no hope 
in that gi-eat land of ours. We are sent there to 
preach to these people, as I say, the Gospel of 
peace ; to show them an organization that is 
divine, an authority which they may right- 
fully be called on to respect ; a religion, a lit- 
erature, a system of doctrines, of Ritual, and 
worship, which can command thPiir sympathy, their 
respect, and their reverence. And I say that when 
these persons come in there, those Ritualists that 
have been referred to i3ut up their shows, and ex- 
hibit their genuflexions, and place before the eyes of 
the people their daubs and pictures, and tinsel sha- 
dows, and they do distract the minds of the people, 
and they do destroy the influence, as far as they 
can, of the Church, and they do show us not to be a 
Jerusalem that is at unity within herself, but a 
Jerusalem that is divided, shattei*ed, and split by 
contending principles; contending views, and con- 
tending practices. 

Therefore, I maintain that there is a necessity for 
legislation on this question. And for another 
reason : We feel, further, that this Church is a 
teaching Church ; she is an ecclesia docens — she is 
sent forth to this land to teach, not the 
mutterings of some toothless old woman, as she 
has bsen irreverently represented — no, sir; but, with 
distinction of language, with clearness, precision, 
and accuracy of statement, to lay down the princi- 
ples not only of religion, but of doctrine, and of dis- 
cipline, a,nd of worship, to command the homage, 
command the reverence, and command the respect 
of the multitudes that she is thus sent to teach. How 
can she teach if she has no definite system to com- 
municate ? Is it a matter of indifference whether 
the incense be wafted or the crucifix set up, or an 
altar reared, with relays and tiers of shelves, with 
secret boxes to hold relics or reserved sacraments, 
as the case may be, or whatever else it may be for 
which these strange things — strange in our eyes, 
strange in our land, sti'ange in our day — are 
placed in some of the churches that are called Pro- 
testant Episcopal i No, sir, she cannot teach if she 
allow these things. She must lay down some law, 
some principle, some kind of statement which in- 
telligent people can reasonably be expected to un- 
derstand; and she must give power and authority 
to enforce obedience to her edicts. I therefore hold 
that there is a necessity for legislation on the subject. 
The next point I have alluded to is, What shall be 
the method of that legislation ? 

Now, sir, I am opposed to the Canon which has 
been reported by the Committee, because it enters 
into specifications of particulars. I hold that posi- 
tion is not solid for two reasons. In the first place, 
you never can draft a Canon excluding cer- 
tain things by negative statements which 
shall be so comprehensive, so exhaustive in its 
qualifications, as that nobody may be 
able to evade its provisions. Something j 
will have been forgotten, and whatever is not speci- ' 
fically forbidden will be considered as to be tole- I 
rated, and you will therefore have ingenious indi- 
viduals with a slight twist in the spine constantly j 
doing this and constantly doing that, and pleading \ 
that you have made a Canon as specific as you could i 
or as you dared, but which does not reach the case ' 



I in question. It is impossible to make a Canon of 

j specific particulars which shall by any pos- 
sibility reach within a hundred miles 
of the necessities of the case. I 
am opposed, therefore, to these specifications for 

: this reason. I am opposed to the particular specifi- 
cations in this Canon for auo slier reason, because 

i those things there pi-ohibited are not now allowed 
in this Church, because there is a law already in 
existence by which those things are virtually for- 
bidden. Why exact another Canon to con- 
demn that which all reasonable men now acknowl- 
edge to be condemned ^ Who pleads that 
incense is p^ermitted in our Church ^ I should like to 
see him get up and plead the case. Who pleads that 
the crucifix is a proper ornament in our Church ; 
I am not aware that anybody maintains the position. 
Who pleads that adoration to or towards the conse- 
crated elements — for you see the Canon is not spe- 
cific as to the presence of Christ therein, but "To or 
towards the sacred elements " — where is the mate- 
rialist, where the idolater who will for one 
instant say that he maintains such 
a position to be in any way possible held, with the 
greatest latitude of toleration, within our present 
Church law ? Nothing of the kind. Therefore, I 
maintain that these specifications are simply nuga- 
tory and futile. You have cumbered your Canon 
with a number of things which you have no busi- 
ness to introduce, because the Church having 
omitted all these things at the Reformation, and 
never byword, or act, or deed, or sign, given even 
a hint or intimation that they might be restored, 
has excluded them, and the man who introduces 
them is in the direct teeth of the history and of 
the prestige and Constitution of this Church of 
ours. 

I hold further that the amendment submitted by the 
Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin is the only possible 
solution of this question which this House can ever 
hope to reach. What is it that you need ? You 
need not a cast-iron system, but you need a system 
of living agency, a living voice, to interpret those 
things which are doubtful or inexpedient — a 
living voice blessed and gifted with authority and 
prerogative, enlarged and defended in the exercise 
of that authority. I hold that the amendment sub- 
mitted by the Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin is 
the exact thing you need. It does away with those 
obnoxious specifications which in my judgment 
would be simply ridiculous to enact, and it consti- 
tutes the Bishop — or rather, I should say, it recog- 
nizes the Bishop, for it could not constitute 
him such — that the Church has already done — as the 
proper fountain of authority, the Ordinary of the 
Diocese, the rightful source of, influence and power 
in these questions, and recognizing this by the en- 
actment of your Canon you give him just what he 
has not now the power to enforce, canonical obedi- 
ence, and to compel the refractory to submit 
to his godly judgment and admonition. They 
will now tell you that the judgment is 
not godly, and therefore, they cannot possibly 
submit to it ; but, sir, if you give them a Canon 
which will lay it down as their bounden duty in 
this Church to obey such admonition they will then 
be compelled to admit that it is not only godly, but 
binding, and pei'haps that may be the more impor- 
tant element of the two. I hold therefore that the 
amendment is woi'thy, on that ground, of the ac- 
ceptance of this House. 

But I ask the patience of the House for a moment 
or two longer, while I deliver another portion of 
my argument. I maintain that the Bishop, as de- 
scribed in this amendment, is the proper source of 
authority in the questions contemplated. Now I 
will give my reason. When God, by the enactment 
of the Eternal Word, veiled his Godhead in human 
flesh, and entered into the limitations of a Son of 



233 



Man, we know well he was then the centre and the 
focus of all law, of all knowledge, and of all 
wisdom, of all i-evelation with I'egard to the 
Father and the duty of the souls of men towards 
Him. We know that the scattered rays of past illu- 
mination gathered into Him as their appropriate 
focus, and we Imow that from Him radiated out 
Ihi-ough all the dark places of the earth the light 
which has since made peaceful and bright the hopes 
of men, as they have risen up here and there, 
and laid hold upon the power of salva- 
tion which He has revealed. We know, further, 
that He delegated to His Apostolic College certain 
of these powers in measme. The Holy Spirit had 
been given to Him without measure, and in Him 
therefore dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead pro- 
perly, and all power and all authority were vested 
in Him. To His disciples He allowed to flow down 
such measure and degree of teaching power, of disci- 
plinary power, of authoritative power to enact laws, 
that they should be not only the teachers of mankind, 
but further the disciplinarians of the Church; and 
having thus organized this body and commissioned 
His messengers, He sent them forth into the world. 
We all know how, in the Apostolic College already 
referred to, the first council, described in the 
fifteenth chapter of the Acts, there was the enact- 
ment of certain laws, the execution of certain dis- 
ciplinary powers, the issuance of an encyclical letter 
which came foi'th from the Apostles and the 
Elders and the brethren — the joint action of both 
Houses, if I may so express myself. 

We feel, as we pass on further, this point, which I 
am anxious to press upon the mind of the House, 
that while we have in the earhest age all authority, 
all power, vested thus in the Apostolic College, we 
have this point, worthy of yom- close attention, that 
each of the Apostles, in their separate districts and 
jurisdictions, had the power to teach and 
jto exercise discipline as to each of them 
should seem best, but not so but that they were 
amenable in the end to the conciliary action and 
correction, if need be, of the whole Apostolic College 
—a position which I do not think is likely to be dis- 
puted. We find then that as the Apostles "hand down 
their authority and their jurisdiction to Timothy 
and Titus and the rest, there was given to the indivi- 
dual Bishops in their individual jurisdictions power 
not only to ordain elders in every city, but to "re- 
prove, rebuke, exhort," not only laity but clergy, 
"with all long-suffering and doctrine," to set in 
order the veiy point we are at present engaged up- 
on — ^to set in order the things that are wanting, to 
issue mandates and give laws for government, and 
hold themselves responsible to the discipline of all 
the body with which they had specifically to do. 

Then, "as we pass on down through the ages, we 
find this very interesting point — and I need not, be- 
fore an audience of the learned character of that 
iwhich I now address, attempt for an instant to go 
pnto detail in this matter; nobody will dispute the 
tosition, I apprehend— that each Bishop had the au- 
horityin his own Diocese not only to preach the 
Grospel but to exercise discipline among his clergy ; 
and it was not until after the lapse of some 
centuries that this power began grad- 
ually to be curtailed, to be reduced by the volun- 
tary concession of the Bishops themselves ; and as 
things went on divisions began to come into play. 
During the power of the Roman Empire, of course 
it was all one vast people, so to speak, though di- 
verse in their language and character ; but when 
they began to disintegrate and go to pieces these 
different opinions came to the surface, and then the 
Church in the different nations began also 
to look after its rights, and to claim 
from the Bishops some surrender of their acknowl- 
edged prerogative, and so in the Council of Toledo 



in 589 we find that the lav,- with regard to discipline 
I and with regai'd to ceremony was finally settled 
j for France and Spain. Why ? Because it was not 
considered expedient that the minds of the ignorarit 
j and the unlettered should be distressed and dis- 
! turbed by diverse systems of Ritual observance, lest 
I they should come "to the conclusion that different 
! doctrine was taught or that schism was count e- 
1 nanced in the Church of God. Thus it was that 

uniformity of practice began to be established. 
I We pass on to later times. We find in England 
j the use of Sanim and other uses; and at the period 
{ of the Reformation they were all gathered together 
i into one. Those things which were then kiK)wiDgly, 
i designedly, of set pui-pose, omitted from the Book of 
! Common Prayer, were done so I say advisedly, and 
the man who will venture now to reintroduce the 
i emblems of the symbols of those mediaeval super- 
stitions or their expression in whatsoever way, by 
: ceremony or otherwise, is a renegade to the Church 
I of the Reformation, and to our brethren in this 
I noble land of ours. 

! I, therefore, hold that it has been satisfactorily 
! and sufficiently established that the Bishop was in 
I primitive times the proper oflicer for the execution 
I of these rules ; that when time continued to advance 
I on, and nations began to assume their independence, 
! then nations legislated to a, certain extent upen the 
i Ritual observances of their Churches, the Bishops 
j yielding a certain portion of their acknow- 
I iedged prerogative as a matter of free concession 
I on their part. And, sir, when we come down to 
i still later times, we find the same thing still continue, 
: for thus the first Book of King Edward distinctly 
j recognizes the Bishop, or the Ordinary, as the 
I proper authority in such questions. I admit it 
j has been left out from our Book, and seme 
i have pleaded its omission as an argument. I 
j maintaili the argument is fallacious, and I will 
I tell you why. Because we know from the resolu- 
! tions which have been passed aud are to be found 
j upon your Journal, we know from the action of 
this House and the other, that we have 
I recognized — not constituted, but recognized — 
I a power already existing in the Bishops 
I upon tliis question. In 1868 it was con- 
fessed that the Bishops were the proper 
parties in the exercise of their Divine commission 
to carry into execution these laws for the suppres- 
sion of extravagancy. We have, in the resolution of 
the last Convention already referred to, made the 
grand acknowledgment that the Bishops in their 
respective Dioceses are the lawfully constituted 
authority, and are deemed efficient for the settlement 
and correcting of all these disputatious questions. 

Now, sir, what do we ask you to do i We ask 
you to enact a Canon which is confessedly a tempo- 
rary measure pending full constitutional action by 
j a commission of revision — a commission which, I 
I hope, will be appointed by this House and the other. 
Pending that proper constitutional measure, we 
ask you to enact a Canon to do what ? To give 
force to your own resolution ; not, as it is 
rumored to have been said, to give backbone to 
your Bishops. I repudiate the taunt, and fling back 
with contempt the indignity ; but I do maintain 
j that it is necessary for you — this body here in Con- 
[ vention, with the other House — to put yourselves 
[ right upon the record, and to confess to 
the world that you are Protestant, and, far 
better, that you are Episcopal ; and when 
, you have thus confessed by power of Canon 
the authority which is already existing in your 
I Bishops, they will have the opportunity of its exer- 
j cise. You have, by your present lame legislation, 
I rendered it almost impossible for yourBishops to exe- 
cute the law. I am utterly opposed to the making of 
spies of your Presbyters. Let the knowledge come to 



234 



ths Bishop's ear any way it may. Make it his duty 
with the Standing Committee, his properly consti- 
tuted advisory council, to uivcstigate the matter ; and 
then, if you will give them tliis simple Canon, it will 
not be in the power of the enemy, from whatever 
side he come, whether from Rome or Geneva, to 
stamp a stigma upon your Episcopate, and say that 
it lacks backbone. Give the Bishoj^s the power to 
carry infco execution that which they have already 
existing in theory. Give them the power of law. 
Some of these men now say, " We will not obey you ; 
v,^e do not acknowledge your pov/er ; we 
deny altogether your power in the premises; we 
will follow after any fit practice, although it be not 
a. particular practice of this Church." O sir ! but 
all these men will obey law. They will not obey 
resolutions ; they will not follow advice ; they will 
not take counsel together ; but they will obey law, 
and if they do not they know the consequences. 
And I want it, further, not left to the option of your 
Bishop, v/hether he shall investigate or not. 
He may be a very meek-souled Christian man, and, 
thank God, we have plenty of them ; we may have 
a, Bishop whose heart is averse to strife and v/ho 
loves peace, and who may therefore be induced to 
leave alone those things that are causing distur- 
bance and unrest. Make it his duty to settle the 
question, to investigate the cause of rumor, to ex- 
amine whether there be any solid ground of com- 
plamt, and then you will have quieted this disturb- 
ance. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Mr. President 
and gentlemen of the Convention, it is with no 
little embarrassment that I now rise to speak to this 
body, after the very eloquent addresses which we 
ha.ve this morning heard. I thank God that we have 
men in tiie Church who can stir up one's heart as the 
reverend brother who just now sat down, and I may 
say, also, as the reverend brother who sp'oke yes- 
terday for so long a time. I agree with both of 
them, in part, in what they said ; but I regret to say 
that I am bound to differ in some points which they 
made, and wiiich led them to conclusions to whichl 
cannot come. I am opposed to the Canon as pro- 
posed by the Committee on Canons, and I v/ill just 
state my reasons very briefly; I am also for spe- 
cific legislation. 

I think, Mr. President, that the eloquent appeal 
against specific legislation by the last speaker, who 
followed in the track of my eloquent brother from 
Wisconsin, is one that will not be sustained by this 
body, and for the reason that specific legislation 
has ah-eady been had upon this subject, and 
the matters upon which we are to legis- 
late are matters adjudicated. I do not 
mean adjudicated in the court of conscience, 
which should, I think, bind all Christian men, when 
we solemnly resolved that we would not counte- 
nance any practices which symbolized Ritualism, and 
when we invited- the House of Bishops to give us 
their paternal advice, which they gave in the Pas- 
toral; but I mean adjudicated in England by the 
highest courts. Elevation of the elements 
in the Lord's Supper, adoration, genuflec- 
tion, prostration, in so many words have been before 
the courts, and have been specifically declared to 
be unlawful ; and we ask you now to do what ? To 
declare by Canon that your words were not mere 
words ; that when you invoked the paternal advice of 
the Bishops you did not merely pass a resolution on 
paper ; and that you came here, not to do, as the 
j-everend brother from Albany so eloquently 
tried to impress upon us, somethmg in or- 
der to satisfy outside parties, that we are 
all frightened out of our wits, that there is no neces- 
sity to legislate, that there were no Ritualists on 
this floor or elsewhere hardly ! No, sir ; we do not 
come here to satisfy outside parties ; but when I read 



the Pastoral of the House of Bishops, and the ad- 
dresses of nearly all the Bishops of the Church, when 
I read the resolutions which were solemnly passed 
by almost every Diocesan Convention which sent ug 
here, I cannot for a moment suppose that when we 
! come together here we can throw in one breath all 
! this to the v,dnds by saying it is a mere panic, 
i But let me come to the point. I beg first to have 
read for me the Canon on Ritual which I proposed, 
which will be found on the thirty-second page of The 
Daily Churchman, of the 13th of October. That 
Canon specifies some things, and I will ask the Sec- 
retary to read it, together with a proviso to the first 
section, which I ha,ve added, and which I send to the 
desk. 

The SECRETARY read as follows : 

" Canon of Ritual Uniformity. 

''Sec. 1. The Elevation of the Elements in the 
Holy Communion in such manner as to expose them 
to the view of the people as objects toward which 
adoration is to be made, in or after the prayer of 
consecration, or in the act of administering, or in 
j conveying them to or from the communicants ; bo-w- 
I ings, crossings, genuflections, prostrations, rever- 
ences, bowing down upon or kissing the Lord's 
Table, and kneeling, except as allowed, provided 
for, or directed by Rubric or Canon; and any ges- 
ture, posture, or act, implyiag such adoration, and 
any ceremony not prescribed as part of ' the order 
for the administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy 
Communion ; ' likewise the use at any administra- 
tion of the Holy Communion of any Hymns, 
Prayers, Collects, Epistles, or Gospels other thru 
those appointed in the authorized formularies of the 
Church, are hereby forbidden. 

"Provided, That nothing in this Canon shall be 
construed as forbidding the customary offertory 
anthem accompanying the reverently bringing and 
humbly presenting and placing upon the Holy Table 
the alms and other devotions of the people. 

"Sec. 2. In all matters pertaining to the Public 
Worship of the Church, to the ornaments, arrange- 
ments, and appointments of the Holy Table, and in 
everything connected with Ritual in the perform- 
ance of Divine Service, including the vestments to 
be used, about which there is no specific direction in 
the Book of Common Prayer, or the Offices and 
Ordinal thereto appended, or in any legislation, 
General or Diocesan, of this Church, the admonition 
or judgment of the Bishop of any Diocese, given in 
writing, shall be regarded as binding, to be followed 
and obeyed by every minister of that Diocese." 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Now, Mr. Presi- 
dent, this Canon certainly specifies, and it specifies 
in words not selected by myself, but taken from the 
House of Bishops, which they in their wisdom — ^and 
I think they are just as wise as we are — at the last 
General Convention proposed to us. For reasons 
stated in a preamble to this Canon when I in- 
troduced it, we did not then think that the time 
had come for legislation. We hoped the pa- 
ternal advice of the Bishops in the Pastoral would 
I be sufficient; but now, finding it is not, we must 
legislate, and legislating I propose to legislate in 
the very words which the Bishops themselves sug- 
gested to us at the last General Convention. The 
proviso, I think, will suggest itself to every one as 
very desirable— namely, the customary sentence at 
! the time of the presenting of the offerings at the 
1 Holy Table. The additional section is one which 
I think provides for all that is good in 
the pending Canon, and for which my rev- 
I erend brother from Nebraska so eloquently 
I pleaded, and it was also impressed upon us 
I by my eloquent brother from Wisconsm, yesterday, 
I namely, that the Bishops should have this rightful 
! authority— an authority not given them, an autho- 



235 



rity only declared, an authority which in the si^ht 
of God they are to exercise, an authority which 
they are to exercise as Bishops, unencumbered, un- 
embarrassed by a Standing Committee. And why? 
Because if you divide the responsibility, put 
the Standing Committee with them, what will 
you have ? You will have tw^o bodies perhaps dis- 
agreeing. Then if they disagree the thing falls to 
the ground. Where is your Bishop's authority ? 
If they agree, then as was very well stated by my 
reverend friend and brother from Wisconsin, what 
will be the opinion of the next Standing Committee? 
Will it not be a bone of oo itention continu- 
ally in a Diocese, one saying, " This 
Standing Committee has not given a right judg- 
ment, and therefore we must have a new Standing 
Committee the next time," and another saying, 
' • Now, we must retain this Standing Committee, 
because it is perfectly sound. " You will introduce 
an element of discord into the Chmxh, and you will 
but fan the difficulty and the trouble, not once but 
continuously. 

But some will say this is giving too much power 
to the Bishops. Giving power ! No ; you are only 
declaring that they have the power, and, as my rev- 
erend brother said, it only takes away the quibble 
whether tiieir admonition is " godly" or not. You 
thus debar any one from setting himself up against 
Ms Bishop in the rightful discharge of his duty in- 
herent in him by saying it is not godly. 

But it does something more, and this with me 
weighs very much. It provides not simply for the 
one side but for the other, not simply for excess but 
for any deficiency that there may be in conducting 
the service. It does not make the Bishop simply the 
power to exercise discipline against one section of 
the Church, but against all the Church. If a clergy- 
man in the matters not expressed or provided 
for by the Prayer-Book or the Ordinal, or 
the legislation of the Church, general or 
Diocesan, is guilty either of excess of Ritual or of 
not having enough, the Bishop can give him his 
godly judgment, and then, if the Bishop shows him- 
self as not having a good judgment, you can remedy 
it at the next Diocesan Convention, or at the next 
General Convention, and then his power ceases ; 
not that it is taken from him, but it is kept under that 
restriction which the Bishops themselves have been 
willing to become parties to in consenting to Con- 
ventions to legislate. 

Now, let us tm-n to the Canon before us. What 
does it do ? It not only affords a bone of contention, 
but, in my humble judgment, it encroaches upon the 
Constitution. I speak this with the greatest defer- 
ence, for on that Committee there are men who are 
honored, and deservedly honored, by the Church. 
The Chairman of that Committee we all feel proud 
of, and we thank God that He has preserved him so 
long to be here, and to act so nobly and so ably for 
the Chm-ch of God; and yet, as I do not believe in 
the infallibility of any man or set of men, I must 
expi-ess my view, and I hope I shall be pardoned 
when I differ from him. 

I contend that not in so many words but in spirit 
it encroaches upon the Constitution. Let us see. 
The investigation is to take place by whom ? By 
the Bishop upon consulting with his Standing Com- 
mittee. If the Bishop and Standing Committee are 
for investigation, come to successful conclusion, 
they are to act, and if they act the party must obey, 
and if he does not obey he receives, what he cer- 
tainly deserves, the reward of disobedience, which 
is punislunent. Now I direct your attention to this 
clause in Article 6 of the Constitution : 

"In every Diocese, the mode of trying Presby- 
ters and Deacons may be instituted by the Conven- 
tion of the Diocese," 

This has been interpreted by the Committee on 



I Amendments to the Constitution to mean that wo 
' are prevented from instituting; or establishing 
Courts of Appeal, because the trying of Presbyters 
and Deacons is lodged in the Dioceses. Are we not 
here providing for trials ? Are we not here pro- 
viding for a mode by which we are to reach 
offenders, and v>^hat is this but trying ? Is this 
consistent with the spirit of the Constitution 
I submit it is hardly consistent with the letter of 
the Constitution. 

Take this Canon, as it is, giving us a few generali- 
ties, introducing any act of adoration symbolizing 
j false doctrine in the service, as the crucifix. I do not 
j wish a crucifix, I have it not, and I hope I never will 
! have it ; and if God preserves my reason I never 
j will introduce it or suffer it in my churches as 
long as I am connected with them. I have no cruci- 
fix about my church, and I hope I will never see it ; 
and yet I must agree with my brother from Wiscon- 
sin, however much these things may be umdesirable, 
however much they may be wrong, because they do 
something else, they do not do what this Canon 
declares — symbolize false doctrine. If we express 
ourselves in words of solemn enactment, let us use 
words which cannot be misunderetood. Do not let 
us commit oureelves before the Church and the 
world by legislating that certain things teach and 
symbolize false doctrine which do not teach and 
symbolize false doctrine. 

I may be blinded. Old men are very fond of their 
children, and sometimes fonder of their younger 
ones, and they become very much attached to them. 
I know I am attached to mine, and the older I get 
the more I love them ; and perhaps, this being my 
last child, having myself proposed it, though it is not 
original, I am in love with it ; but I really do think 
that the Canon which I introduced very early in 
the session, and which modestly I moved be referred 
to the Committee on Canons, is less liable to objec- 
tion than the one which the Committee on Canons 
have introduced, and therefore I hold that it should 
be adopted. I move it, Mr. President, as a sub- 
stitute. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Rev. Dr. Wil- 
liams, of Georgia, in the Chair). It cannot be 
moved now. We have already two amendments 
and one substitute, and therefore it must be ruled 
out of order. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I give notice of 
my intention to move it at the proper time, when I 
can in accordance with the rules do so. 

Mr. President, there is one more point, and only 
one more, that I wish to make with regard to the 
Canon proposed by the Committee on Canons. I 
stated that, in my opinion, it runs very strongly on 
the heels of the Constitution. I think also it runs 
counter to a provision in the Canons, and I will ask 
the Convention to turn to page 86 of the Digest, 
to the Canon "Of Offences for which Minift- 
ters may be tried and punished," and to 
"Proceedings on Public Rumor." You will 
find that there it is said that if there be 
public rumor of a minister of this Church living in 
the habitual disuse of public worship or of the Holy 
Eucharist, according to the offices of this Church, or 
of being guilty of any or either of the offences enu- 
merated in number so and so, among which offences, 
you remember, is a breach of the ordination vow ; 
and if you make these things a breach of the ordina- 
tion vow, it comes among the offences and the 
modes by which a clergyman is tried ; and then the 
Canon says : 

" It shall be the duty of the Bishop, or, if there be 
no Bishop, of the clerical members of the Standing 
Committee, to see that an enquiry be instituted as to 
the truth of such public rumor." 

Here the Canon says how public rumor is to be 
reached. It is to be reached by the Bishop institut- 



236 



ing enquiry, and if there bo no Bishop, by | 
the clerical members of the Standing Committee. [ 
Does the Canon reported to us by the | 
Committee on Canons do this ? No. It says the 
Bishop shall call in the Standing Committee, and 
does not even say that he shall call in the clerical 
members of the Standing Committee. The Stand- 
ing Committee in most Dioceses, we know, is com- 
posed of both clergy and laity, and they are to be 
called in to do what ? To enquire as to the truth of 
such a rumor. Now, I contend that this Canon is 
entirely contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the 
Constitution and directly in the teeth of this Canon. 
I ask the pardon of the Convention for detaining 
them so long. 

JElev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey, obtained the 
floor. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Will the Dep- 
uty from New Jersey allow me to make a motion 
to facilitate business ? 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. Certainly. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move that 
the order of the day concerning the Hymnal be 
discharged, and that the report of the Hymnal Com- 
mittee, and the papers appertaining to it, become 
the order of the day immediately after the debate 
he finished. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the order of 
the day appointed for two o'clock this day be dis- 
charged, and that the same subject be made the 
oi'der of the day immediately after the conclusion of 
the matter now before the House. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev, Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I now move 
that the vote be taken upon this Canon of Ritual 
at four o'clock to-day, the Committee on Canon hav- 
ing the right to close the debate. 

Rev. Mr. STONE, of Delaware. I move to 
amend that by saying "at eleven o'clock to-mor- 
row." 

The PRESIDENT. Before putting the question, 
I beg to suggest to the House, knowing as 1 do that 
many gentlemen desire to speak on this subject, 
whether it would not be right and proper to fix a 
shorter limit to the speeches. Thirty minutes will 
certainly not allow half the persons who desire to 
speak to be heard, and some of them as offering 
amendments will be entitled to be heard. The ques- 
tion is upon the amendment that the debate be closed 
at eleven o'clock to-morrow. 

The amendment was rejected. 

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the 
motion of the Deputy from Long Island, that the 
debate close at four o'clock this aftei'noon, and that 
the Committee on Canons be allowed to close the 
debate. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I think the 
Committee on Canons ought to be allowed the last 
fifteen minutes. 

Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. I 
move that the speeches be limited to fifteen minutes. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I move 
that the last fifteen minutes be reserved for Commit- 
tee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

RELATIONS WITH CANADIAN CHURCH. 

A message (No. 48), from the House of Bishops, 
announced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

" Resolved, That this House concurs with the 
House of Deputies in the adoption of the resolution 
contained in Message No. 32, from the said House, 
with the following amendment, viz. : That in the 
third resolution the words 'suspension or' be 
omitted, so that the said third resolution shall read, 



' Resolved, That on the deposition of any clergy- 
man,' " etc. 

The SECRETARY. This refers to the com- 
municating of the notice of suspension or deposi- 
tion of any clergyman to the Bishops of the Cana- 
dian Church, and is a part of the resolutions adopted 
by the Joint Committee to confer with the Canadian 
Deputation. 

The PRESIDENT. This message is a mere 
formal matter, and may as well be concurred in 
now. 

The message was concurred in. 

PART OF CALIFORNIA TO BE A MISSIONARY DIS- 
TRICT. 

A message (No. 47) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing preamble and resolution: 

Whereas, The Diocese of California by deliber- 
ate action of the Bishop and Convention thereof has 
for urgent and sufficient reasons declared its desire 
to establish its northern limits on the southern line 
of Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Sacramento, Amador, 
and El Dorado counties; and whereas this House is 
suiRciently assured of the assent of the parishes lying 
north of the said boundary line ; and whereas, while 
grave doubts are entertained by many of the power 
under our Constitution to permanently alter the 
territorial extent of a Diocese in this form, yet im- 
pressed by the great necessities of the Church in 
that Diocese and of the justice of her claim for 
prompt relief. Therefore, 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies concurring). That the General Convention 
hereby signifies its consent and agreement to the 
limitations of the jvirisdiction of the Bishop and 
Convention of the Diocese of California within the 
limits above indicated, until such constitutional 
amendment and legislation thereunder can be se- 
cured as are necessary to remove the doubts afore- 
said, and that in the mean time the territory north* 
of the limits aforesaid and within the State of Cali- 
fornia be held and treated as Missionary Jurisdic- 
tion." 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. May I ask 
consent of the House to put the California matter 
through ? The principles are the same that we have 
discussed in the Texas case. I move, if there be no 
objection, that the House concur in the message of 
the House of Bishops, No. 47. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The hour of half -past one having arrived, a recess 
was taken till two o'clock p.m., when the House 
resumed its session. 

DISCIPLINE OF COMMUNICANTS. 

A message (No. 49) from the House of Bishops 
announced that it appointed as members of the 
Joint Committee to consider and report what action, 
if any, is desirable in relation to the matter of the 
godly discipline of communicant members of this 
Church, the Bishop of Delaware, the Bishop of Eas- 
ton, and the Bishop of Pittsburgh. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. 

A message (No. 50) from the House of Bishops 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"Resolved, That this House does not concur in the 
amendment to Section 1 of Canon 1 of Title III., 
contained in Message No. 35 from the House of De- 
puties, for the reason that inasmuch as the rules and 
ordei-s of each House of the General Convention 
are in the power of said House, no joint action or 
legislation on such rules and oi'ders appears to be 
necessary or expedient. " 



237 



AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION. 

Rer. Dr. HALL, of Loug Island, I ask uiiani- 
inous consent to be allowed to put in a report now. 
['*'No objection."] 

'•The Committee oji Constitutional Amendments, 
to whom were referred sundry amendments to 
Article HI. of the Constitution, proposed by Dr. 
Leeds, of Maryland. Mi'. Montgomery, of Geor- 
gia, Mr. Blanchard, of Maryland, et al., have had 
the same mider consideration, and beg leave to re- 
port : That in the opinion of the Committee it is de- 
sirable to retain the provisions of said articles, re- 
quiring the House of Bishops to signify to this 
House their approbation or disapprobation (the 
latter with their reasons in writing) within a 
si>ecified time, to the end that this House may know 
what has been done ; and in case of non-concur- 
rence, the reasons therefor, which will enable the 
House to meet the issue thus raised. 

" Also to retain that provision which makes any 
Bishop present ex officio a member of the House un- 
til there are three or more Bishops in attendance — 
for surely, in such a case, such Bishop or Bishops 
would make most valuable members of this House, j 
.And it is not advisa.ble to dispense with such assis- \ 
tance. 

" The Committee submit the following resolution : 
"Resolved, That it is inexpedient, at this time, to 
adopt any of the said amendments proposed to Arti- 
cle III. of the Constitution." 

I would ask consent to have this put on its passage 
now. 

The resolution was considered and agreed to. 

CANON ON EITUAL, 

The House resumed the consideration of the 
Canon on Ritual, reported by the Committee on 
Canons. 

Mr. HAYDEISr, of Connecticut. I move that in 
the further debate on this subject, as our time is so 
limited, the laity be allowed a reasonable oppor- 
tunity to present their side of this case. I do not 
wish to speak myself, but there are members of the 
laity who desire to speak, and, I hope, they will have 
an opportunity. I think they ought to be heard 
somewhat in reference to this matter before this 
debate is closed. 

The PRESIDENT. I think the suggestion is emi- 
nently worthy of attention ; and I would further 
suggest that, although gentlemen are allowed fifteen 
minutes for their speeches, they are not compelled 
to occupy the whole fifteen minutes. [Laughter.] 
They may say, perhaps, in five or ten minutes all 
that will be very pertinent to the question. I sug- 
gest that for the benefit of aU, and I shall be most 
happy, and the House will be most happy to hear 
from the learned laymen, who are quite as much in- 
terested in this matter as the clergy can be. Dr. 
Clark is entitled to the floor, and will please pro- 
ceed. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. Mr. Pi-esi- 
dent, since you have given me so useful a hint, I 
shall not only try to take it myself, but I hope the 
rest of the members who will speak wiU take it 
also. Fifteen minutes is not time to make a speech 
in, and I have no desire therefore to attempt to 
occupy the time in making a speech . I propose to call 
attention to the fact of the existence of Ritualism, 
and the proposed remedy with which to meet it. 
There are but two pronounced Ritualists in this 
House, so far as I know. One comes from the West 
and the other comes from the East. One represents 
the Clerical Deputies, the other the Lay Deputies. 
So it is hardly worth w-hile for us to think or talk 
much about them. But there are in other portions of 
the Church, and there are in portions of the Church 
not far from us — (on account of the courtesy we are 
receiving from the Diocese of New York, I wish it 



to be understood that I am speaking of the Diocese 
which I have the honor of representing, and not of 
practices which are going on here from time to time) 
— evidences of Ritualism, of Romanism, of Romish 
practices in some of our Dioceses which ought to be 
met, and met at once. I hold in my hand a docu- 
ment from which I propose to make a few brief ex- 
tracts, entitled "A few Suggestions to Church- 
goers," "Observances for the Devout Laity." I 
will only take a few points from this, because I do 
not wish to consume time in reading the whole : 

"(1.) Bowing to the Altar. 

" On entering and leaving the Church it has al- 
ways been the custom to boiv toward the Altar, not 
of course as paying any worship toward it, but both 
because it is God's Throne, and as an act of adora- 
tion to Him So Christians worship 

toward the Holy Altar, and bow down before it, 
taking that at all times as a visible symbol of His 
presence, which is the appointed place of His actual 
presence in the Holy Communion. " 

^'■Bowing during Divine Service.''^ 
I am skipping a large portion of this document. 
" The faithful bow at the name of Jesus whenever 
it occurs in the course of Divine service, in devout 
adoration of that name at which, as St. Paul says, 
'Every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and 
things on earth,' etc. . . . 

" Also in the Nicene Creed it is customary to bow 
(and some kneel) at the clause 'And was made man ' 
in veneration of the ineffable condescension of God 
the Son in stooping to become man for our salva- 
tion. 

Kneeling — Standing — the Sign of the Cross. 
"Kneeling is the appointed attitude of prayer, 
standing of praise, sitting of instruction ; in aU 
three facing the Altar. In a Low celebration, all 
kneel throughout, except at the Gospel when all 
should stand, in reverence for ' the good tidings of 
salvation. ' A High celebration being longer, sitting 
at the Epistle is allowable. " 

Having never been to either a High or Low cele- 
bration, I do not know what they are. 

" The custom of making the sign of the cross is as 
old as Christianity itself, and is mentioned by the 
earliest writers. Those who practise this venerable 
custom do it before and after engaging in public or 
private prayer, when they invoke the Holy Trinity, 
saying, ' Jn the name of the Father,^ as with the 
fingers of the right hand they touch the forehead, 
because the Father is the head of all things ; ' and 
of the Son,' as they touch the left breast, because 
the Son was begotton by the Father ; 'ancZ of the 
Holy Ghost,' as they draw from left to the right 
across the breast, because the Holy Ghost proceeds 
from the Father and the Son. ..." 

THE HOLY EUCHABIST. 

" (1.) TJie Altar and its Appointments. 
"The altar, approached by steps, is raised above 
the level of the Church, to represent the Mount Cal- 
vary, upon which our Lord died, and is mounted 
by a cross to remind us of His crucifixion upon 
Calvary. On either side of the Altar-cross are 
placed two lights, teaching us that Christ is the 
true 'Light of the World,' and likewise on either 
side are placed vases of flowers, teaching us, 
I among other things, that Christ is the ' Rose of 
Sharon and the Lily of the Valley. ' 

" (3), JTie Consecration and after. 
" Here begins the most solemn part of the Office. 
Up to this part Christ is not objectively present, but 
at the words, ' This is My body — This is My blood, ' 
Christ comes to the altar under the form of Bread 



238 



and Wine, At this point the faithful bow or pros- 
trate themselves in deepest adoration of Him 
who veiled His Godhead under the mean 
form of a little Infant, when the Wise 
Men knelt and worshipped Him, and who now veils 
both His Godhead and manhood under the mean 
and common forms in the Blessed Sacrament. If 
they should by any chance be obliged to enter or 
leave church, or pass before the Altar after the 
prayer of consecration, they will also kneel on one 
knee in the same adoring spirit. " 

There is something here similar to the prayers 
read by the Deputy from Pennsylvania, and which 
I therefore omit. 

The faithful, if they have communicated at the 
early celebration, stay all through the mid-day cele- 
bration for the purpose of adoration, but not to 
receive the Blessed Sacrament again. 

" If any of the Blessed Sacrament remains on the 
Altar during the singing of the Gloria in Excelsis^ 
the faithful bow reverently at the words ' We ivor- 
ship Thee.''' 

Now, sir, I miderstand that this docmnent was 
placed in the pews of a certain church for the edifi- 
cation of the people vdio attend that church; and 
not far from that church I have attended a service 
v/hich it was utterly impossible for me, as a 
Protestant Episcopalian, to unite in, because I 
could neither understand the motions nor hear 
the words, the service being intoned, or, as a late 
Rector of St. Stephen's Church, Philadelphia, 
said to a gentleman who was in the habit 
of intoning the service, "Is that what you call in- 
toning V " Yes. " "I call that very bad reading. " 
[Laughter.] "Whether it was reading or intoning, 
it is difficult to say. The minister's back was to- 
v/ards the people ; there were men bov/ing and pos- 
turing ; there were men whom I saw taking them- 
selves to pieces, after the service take off their 
robes, and do a variety of other things which were 
certainly not in accordance with the usages of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church. 

Sir, Ritualism does exist ; it has infested and in- 
fected our Church ; it is doing a vast amount of 
mischief ; it is hindering the growth of the Church, 
and, going on at this rate, we shall have but few 
men to stand and protect our rights or preach 
the Gospel as it should be preached throughout 
our puliJits. Only sixty men each year are 
likely to be added to our ministry for 
tha next three years ; and I believe one 
cause of this great ^falling off is the existence of 
this very thing in our Church. Men who are men 
are not fond of millinery and toys. Men who want 
to preach the Gospel of Christ, and who want to 
produce an effect upon the world, are not men who 
are spending their time in mailing little crosses, in 
adorning their persons, in tying ropes around 
their bodies, in making themselves conspicuous 
for the show they make rather than because of what 
they can utter which is worthy of being heard. 

Are my fifteen minutes up, because if so I must 
go on to something else ? 

The PRESIDEKT. Pretty nearly up. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. Now for 
the remedy. I hope I shall be able to get this in, 
because I stand here the advocate of the view pre- 
sented by my learned and eloquent brother from 
the Diocese of Wisconsin [Rev. Dr. De Koven]. His 
views in this respect — I mean in respect to the 
Canon on Ritual — suit me a great deal better than 
the Canon which was reported to this House by the 
Committee on Canons, and I stand here, therefore, 
to advocate the passage of his a,mendent. I read it : 

"If any Bishop has reason to believe that cere- 
monies or practices durmg the celebration of the 
Holy Communion not ordained or authorized in the 
Book of Common Prayer, and setting forth or sym- 



bolizing doctrines not in accordance with those of 
this Church, have been introduced into a parish 
within his jurisdiction, it shall be the duty of such 
Bishop to summon the Standing Committee as his 
council of advice, and with them to investigate the 
matter." 

I do not believe in sending any two Clergymen 
around as spies ; Paul Prys, as they have been 
termed in this House. I do not believe in giving to 
any two or three laymen the power to bring any 
clergyman up. If that were the law, I should have 
been brought up I suppose forty times, not because 
I do not perform the services precisely as I did 
twenty-eight years ago, when I entered the ministry, 
but because there are some men who have 
become so mixed up in their views of the service 
that they do not recognize it when it is properly 
performed in the old-fashioned Connecticut way, 
which I beheve is considered orthodox. 

" And if, after investigation, it shall appear to the 
Bishop and the Standing Committee that doctrines 
not in accordance with those of this Church have, in 
fact, been set forth or symbolized by ceremonies or 
practices not ordained or authorized as aforesaid," 
etc. 

Now, sir, I feel that we shall be perfectly safe if we 
adopt that Canon. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
knows better than anybody on this floor what Ritual- 
ism is. He wants to stop it. He proposes here a Canon 
with which he hopes he can stop it. I hope he can, 
too. Now, sir, I will take your hint and sit down. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. Mr. President 
and gentlemen of the Convention, it is with un- 
feigned diffidence that I attempt to speak on this 
subject. For more than thirty-five years I have 
been accustomed to be one of the audience and re- 
ceive the doctrine from the pulpit, scarcely enquir- 
ing in doctrinal points whether it be right 
or whether it be wrong; but since I have 
been elected a delegate to this Convention I 
have read the various communications which have 
been made on this subject of Ritualism and on this 
subject of High Church and of Low Church, and I 
have tried to form some opinion, and I confess to 
you that, if I know myself, I am neither High 
Church nor Low Church ; I am no RituaUst ; I am 
simply a Churchman desiring to see the Prayer- 
Book carried out in all its purity. 

Having thus defined myj^|»osition, I come before 
you to speak in respect to the Canon which has 
been presented by the Committee on Canons. The 
report that they made impressed me. It is evidently 
an effort on their part to do something, and yet to 
keep within proper bounds. I feel since I have 
been here that I may say the universal senti- 
ment of our Church is against any extremes 
in our religion. The feeling of this House is against 
Rituahsm. I feel that that is now the common 
sentiment and the common opinion of the Church 
from one end of the Union to the other. And when 
that Committee said, "We have had divers opinions 
in our Committee, and finally we have agreed upon 
certain things, or upon a Canon, and in that Canon we 
have aU agreed," it favorably impressed me, for 
there was nothing in that Canon to which I could 
take exception. But I have examined it, and I have 
examined it carefully, and I do object to 
it now, particularly after the analysis which 
it ha,s received " in this debate. I ob- 
ject to it because in the various specifica- 
tions I do not myself understand what is symbo- 
lized and what is not. Using incense, I do not un- 
derstand, unless some one will get up and explain 
it. I have seen lights in the church ; I supposed 
they were candles. I suppose that meant "we 
want more light" [laughter], but I do 
j not know what theological proposition 
i was thereby involved. There is nothing here about 



239 



lights. Jf I were to see incense offered, I should not 
know its meaning unless some one told me what it 
meant. It is true that this Canon is confined en- 
tirelj- to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. I see 
that therefore ifc has some hidden meaning that is 
not explained to me. If men teach false doctrine, it 
seoms to me the Church in some way should explain 
itself and arraign the minister who preaches false 
do3trine. 

The objection I have now to this thing is that all 
these propositions are in the negative. I do not 
think it becomss this Convention to legislate in the 
negative. We ought to say in the spirit, at all 
events, " thus saith the Lord " ; "verily I say unto 
you " ; " so it shall bo, and it shall be not otherwise." 

But my objection is not that alone. We have a 
law, and by that law we should live. We have a 
Constitution of this Church, and since I have been 
honored by being made a member of the Prayer- 
Book Committee, I have examined into this subject. 
The Ritual cannot be changed except in the form 
prescribed by the Constitution. Have the members 
of this Convention given that subject their 
consideration as carefully as they ought to have 
done ? In the Eighth Article of the Constitution the 
words are emphatic, distinct, plain, and any one can 
understand them. After saying that the adminis- 
tration of the sacraments and other rites and cere- 
monies shall be laid down in the Prayer-Book, the 
Article proceeds to say : 

"No alterations or additions shall be made in the 
Book of Common Prayer or other offices of the 
Church, or the Articles of Religion, unless the same 
shall be proposed in one General Convention, and 
by a resolve thereof made known to the Convention 
of every Diocese, and adopted at the subsequent 
General Convention." 

In this matter what is here proposed is either an 
alteration, or it is an addition, or it is a perfect ne- 
gative, that I do not Imow how ministers may con- 
strue it : but I see very well how a subtle mind can 
escape all your negative, and laugh at the Conven- 
tion. The Bishops, a few years ago, explained a 
term in the office of Infant Baptism. It v/as in a 
negative form. ITow we have petitions 
before us to leave it optional with the minister to 
use it or not to use it, though the explanation 
was given, and thoug;h I suppose that explanation 
satisfies the conscience of nearly every minister 
who may use it. I anroringing this as an evidence 
that we had better go according to the law of the 
land. We have a, law as I say, and by that law let 
us live. There is no way of escape from this clause 
in the Constitution, but to construe this Canon as 
simply explaining the Prayer-Book. I submit to 
your judgment whether that is not an evasion 
of the direct letter of the Constitution and 
also of its spirit. I submit it to candid, 
conscientious, true men. If it be unconstitutional, 
how can we do it ? This is a compromise proposi- 
tion. It is evident, it bears upon its face the marks 
of compromise. I have in my life often found com- 
promise propositions, but I never knew a compro- 
mise proposition that v^as ever satisfactorj^ to either 
party. A compromise proposition does not satisfy ; 
it does not go far enough for one, and it goes too 
far for another. When we here are legislating on 
this subject, shall we not devise some means hy 
which we can come to a proposition which v/iU cer- 
tainly convey what I think the Church wants, al- 
though I do not feel since I have come here that there 
is as much need of it as I thought existed in the 
Church before I came here ? I do not see but that 
this Church is perfectly sound on the subject of Rit- 
ualism, and I have seen no exliibition of a spirit 
which would overcome that feeling. 

What I have already said prepares me for 
v,'hat I have to offer as a substitute for all this 



I when it is in order. I shall read it as a part of my 
argument. I submit it to you. I hope it will be 
examined by you, and that you will receive it 
in the spirit I offer it. I offer it as one who 
would say that if these things mean false doctrine 
I am against every one of them. I want 
1 everything of that kind in the Church stopped; 
and, thank God, since I came here, I 
have learned that probably there are not more 
than four or five churches, at the most, where there 
are any of these practices that symbolize anything 
which we think erroneous or strange doctrine. 
There are only four or five such churches, and 
there is not one single representative from them 
here, unless we may call the lay member f i^om Mas- 
sachusetts a representative of those churches, and 
he made a speech to which I took but very little ex- 
ception. Here is the amendment which I propose 
to offer ; I think I have drawn it up with care, and 
I hope, when it is offered, it will be understood : 

" Whereas, There is much feeling in the Church 
upon the subject of certain ceremonials 9.nd prac- 
! tices to be found in some of our churches." 

I am glad that they are not to be found to the ex- 
tent I apprehended. 

"And whereas, The subject of liturgy, which lies 
at the bottom of the said usages, is one of no little 
difiiculty, requiring especial study for its mastery. 

" And whereas, This body is too large and has not 
the time to weigh the many nice points of theology 
and Pdtual on the questions in issue." 

I speak of this because, so far are we advanced in 
the session that it is now impossible for the 
Committee on Canons or the Committee on the 
Constitution or the Conmiittee on the Prayer-Book 
to prepare something to go to all the Dioceses, and 
come back again at the end of three years. 

" And whereas. It is necessary to meet these ques- 
tions fairly and calmly, so as to guard this Church 
I from error of doctrine, and from strange and im- 
lawful practices. Therefore, 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That it shall be the duty of the President of this 
body to appoint a committee of three clerical and 
three lay members of this House, to act with a com- 
mittee of three on the part of the House 
of Bishops, who shall, with as little de- 
lay as possible, select a commission of 
learned men, to be composed as they shall 
think best, which commission shall sit from time to 
time between this and the reassembling of the Gen- 
eral Convention, and shall consider the whole ques- 
tion of the Ritual laws of the Church, and report to 
the said next General Convention what changes, if 
i any, are needed in our present formularies, and 
what laws, if any, should be enacted to meet the 
end herein proposed." 

I propose this in order to have the public mind di- 
rected to the subject, and the ablest men and the best 
talent of the Church brought to bear on the subject, 
to see if there is anything needed to suppress bad 
practices symbolizing false doctrine. Why "are we in 
such a hurry ? This Prayer-Book of ours has stood 
more than two himdred years. It has stood the test 
of time. Our Church is'eminently conservative. 

Sir, I honestly believe that this Church has up to 
this time, and is destined for all time to come, small 
it may be in numbers to keep the rehgion of Jesus 
Christ pure with all the denominations in this 
country. They are bound to come to us to see 
what are the standards of true Christianity. We 
I are the guardians of this vesta,l fire. Let us not 
1 do anything in haste. Let us not offend 
I a good brother. We are not now necessarily com- 
I pelled to act. Why shall we be guided by this false 
I cry and that false cry? When men tell me that this 
I Chm-ch is given up to Ritualism, v/hat do I say ? 
' Why, sir, there is a general voice throughout this 



240 



Convention that they will not agree to Ritualism, a 
universal feeling of that kind, and the great difficulty 
which I see is to be the result of acting with undue 
haste. 

I have been content with the Prayer-Book. The 
Eucharist is " the difficulty. " I have been content 
with the expressions on that subject. I 
have been content to take the Lord's Sup- 
per in remembrance of His death and pas- 
sion. That is what my Prayer-Book tells me. But 
what is the difficulty of those brethren who claim 
to be advanced ? but my judgment is like that of 
tiie gentleman who said awhile ago, that instead of 
it being an advanced, it is rather a retroceding po- 
sition. Instead of going away from Rome, from 
which we reformed, it is going back to Rome. I 
would say plainly that the difficulty in their mind 
is not in the thing itself. We all understand that 
the Lord is present in His Supper. [Here the ham- 
mer fell.] 

Mr, HAZLEHURST, of Pennsylvania. Mr. 
President, on behalf of the laity — 

Rev. Dr. NORTON, of Virginia. I rise to a point 
of order. My point of order is this : I enquire 
whether the floor is dealt out by the President now 
according to the parliamentary rule adopted by the 
Convention, or by some other rule which he thinks 
more expedient ? 

. The PRESIDENT. It is according to the parlia- 
mentary rule, as well as I know how to administer 
it. 

Mr. HAZLEHURST, of Pennsylvania. I say, 
Mr. Presideiit, that, on behalf of the laity of tliis 
Chm-ch, I thanli you. This is the first opportunity 
we have ha i for some time to say some words on 
this subject. While I thank you, I object to the re- 
cognition of me as from the "locality of the ancient 
commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I do not speak 
upon this question as from any particular 
locality. I should like to take inspiration 
of the delegate from Virginia, who, in 1774, 
stood in the Continental Congress in the 
City of Independence, and, when asked 
whether he came from Virginia, said : " No ; I am 
a representative of America." Now, I say to my 
friends of this body, I speak this afternoon not for 
the limited locality of the city of Philadelphia or 
the Diocese of Pennsylvania, but I speak for the 
Church — the American Church, as broad and as 
general as the American Union. 

What is the question, sir ? My good friend from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Shattuck] teUs us that there is 
no such thing as Ritualism. Why, sir, the air is 
f uU of it. Every day that we have been in session 
here (and I have been in this hall for the last two 
weeks and a half) the subject of Ritualism has been 
discussed. Every day it has fiUed this edifice. Up 
to the time its debate began, we had but few audit- 
ors present here, but from the time that commenced 
the whole building has been filled, and I may say 
with perfect propriety and without any attempt at 
compliment, that this beautiful buildmg has - been 
made more beautiful by the discussion of Ritualism. 
Now, sir, what is it? What are we to discuss ? I 
speak here as a lawyer. It is no objection to me 
that I happen to be a Philadelphia lawyer. [Laugh- 
ter.] What is the old law ? What is the mischief ? 
And what is the remedy ? 

First, What is the old law ? There is the old law 
— the good old-fashioned Prayer-Book ; and your 
Canon, I hardly think, has improved it. There it 
is— the old-fashioned Prayer-Book. The old law 
binding the Presbyter is — first, the seventh article 
of your Constitution ; second, the Prayer-Book of 
1789 ; third, the offices of 1793 ; and last, the much- 
abused and much-controverted articles of 1801. 
There is the old law. Under that old law the Presbyter 
enters the Church with a solemn vow that he will 



conform in everything to the doctrines of the 
Church. He enters your place of worship and, be- 
fore the assembled congregation, saj^s that he will 
administer the sacrament, how i According 
to the doctrines and forms and usages of 
the Church. If he exhibits it in any other 
way ; if he spreads above your altar the 
paraphernalia of the juggler and violates the whole 
Ritual of the Church, what are you to do with him ? 
What would we do v/ith a lawyer who should violate 
his oath? We, in the City of Philadelphia, take an 
oath of this kind, that we will stand by the Consti- 
tution of the State of Pennsylvania ; we will stand 
by the Constitution of the American Union; we 
will delay no man's cause for lucre or malice, and 
we will be faithful to the Court as well as to the 
client. And if the lawyer does not do it he is stric- 
ken from the list by the order of the Court. 

Now let me tell you, my friends, that this is a ques- 
tion between the laity, if you please, and the 
clergy; and if any of the clergy cannot conform-to 
the rules and the regulations thus laid down, the 
laity must take the matter in their own hands. 
There is no Ritualism, says my distinguished lay 
friend from Massachusetts; here and there a church, 
one in this city, and so on. Why, my friends, it is 
written, as it were, on the beUs of the horses, wide 
and general as the streets throughout the city of 
New York, 

Now we have the law ; we have the mischief ; and 
next we have the remedy. Pass this Canon if you 
please, and I shall certainly vote for it ; but it is a 
very little improvement upon the Rubrics as now 
laid down in that Book. What are you to do ? If a 
clergyman will not adhere to these rules, there is a 
way already laid down by which the Bishop of the 
Diocese can secure conformity to them. There 
is the law of the Constitution, as I said, the law of the 
Prayer-Book; and I do not thinlr — I speak it rever- 
ently, nay, I say it affectionately — that there is one 
clergyman who conscientiously, soberly, and truly, 
woiild willingly violate a single Canon or Rubric of 
this Church. Why should they ? We are aU going 
on in the same way. 

I heard men talk to-day and yesterday of sacra- 
mental offices and matters of that kind, which we 
know very little of in our profession and speak of Eu- 
charistic adoration. Sir, I have been brought up at 
the feet of William White, and in our ancient Com- 
monwealth we have been^aught that there was 
one sacrifice, a perpetual sacrifice, but that it was 
once, and only once offered. Now, talk not to me 
about symbolic representations, and matters of that 
kind. Let me tell you it is taking us over othei- 
pavements than those to which we have been 
accustomed. It is taking us over tessellated pave- 
ments that may probably lead, I will not say to the 
Vatican, but in some neighborhood hke that — ^tessel- 
lated pavements that exhibit mummeries and sym- 
bols which we have condemned. 

I say that this is a matter in which you 
and I and all of us have an interest. I 
have been a quiet, but not an indiffe- 
rent spectator of these proceedings. I have 
been on a very important Committee, and I do not 
think I have been indifferent to the int-erest of the 
Church in this body ; but I have been quiet. Now 
I will say that the laity will stand by this Church if 
every clergyman within the sound of my voice de- 
serts it, and this Church is to be preserved by the 
laity. I want you to understand that. If the strug- 
gle come between the clergy and the Church, we 
will take the covenant into our keeping. That we 
will do. No human power shall compel this Ark 
of the Almighty to go down. If it does go down, 
we shall carry the banner ourselves. 

I should deprecate a struggle in this matter be- 
tween the laity and the clergy ; but if it is inevi- 



241 



table, 1 say let it come; let it come. \Ve have our 
proposition here [holding up the Prayer-Book]. 
Luther had his propositions, and what did he do 
with them ? He fastened them upon the 
castle-gates of Wittemberg and dared Cath 
olic Em-ope to the controversy. Our propo- 
sition is here — the Prayer-Book, dear to 
me in my very heart of hearts ; the Prayer-Book. 
with all its memories, with all its pleasures, bring- 
ing us in full accord and sweet commimion with the 
Reformed Church of England. We cannot battle 
with our proposition as Luther did with his; but we 
can lay it upon the Altar, and give our adoration to 
the Most High God, and preserve it for His sake. 

Rev. Dr. NORTON, of Virginia. Mr. President 
and gentlemen, I have no idea of making a dis- 
course on Ritualism considered philosophically, 
historically, or theologically ; but I wish to say a very 
few words upon the Canon now before the House. 

As to the suggestion that we have no constitu- 
tional power to pass such a Canon, I think that after 
this Committee of thirteen, so reluctant, have ven- 
tm-ed to report the Canon, we may allow the con- 
stitutional question to rest. 

As to the point that we have no need of legislation 
on this subject, that this evil has been greatly exag- 
gerated, i say that, if we have been sent here to re- 
present the Church on any subject, it is with regard 
to this matter called Ritualism ; if anything is ex- 
pected of this General Convention, it is that we shall 
deal in some way with this matter of Ritualism. 

And now, sir, with regard to this special Canon, I 
am free to say that it does not come up to what I 
regard as the need of the Church at this time ; but 
such is my respect for that Committee, so well con- 
vinced am I that there is greater wisdom in the con- 
flicts of opinions among learned and intelligent 
men such as those who are found on that Com- 
mittee, that, although I might imagine and do 
imagine that I might suggest myself an amend- 
ment which would greatly improve this Canon, yet, 
for one, I will bow to their judgment and vote 
pure and simple for their Canon. 

Sir, my first impressions of this Canon being, as I 
have stated, that it did not meet all the demands of 
our Church at this time, I listened with great care 
to the learned gentleman who defended the Canon, 
and I must say, in all candor, that his defence of it 
made me doubt as to whether, after all, it would 
avail much ; but when I heard the learned address 
of the gentleman from Wisconsin, I became satisfied 
that after all there must be something in the Canon 
or he never could display such energy in opposition 
to it. 

The great fault which has been found with this 
Canon in itself has applied chiefly to two points ; 
the first one strenuously urged is the word "doubt- 
ful", and we are asked what are " doubtful doc- 
trines." Now, sir, I do not suppose we are called 
upon to interpret here this Canon. We may 
express our individual opinions as to what words 
in this Canon mean, but they would all go for 
nothing. It will be the duty of those who ad- 
minister the Canon to say what the word 
" doubtful " means. But I do not sympathize with 
the objection which has been made to this word 
" doubtful." I think I can see a good meaning in 
it, and one which is properly applicable to this very 
subject which we have on hand. "Erroneous doc- 
trines" we understand to be statements of 
doctrine clearly in conflict with the doctrine 
of the Chm-ch. "Doubtful doctrines" I understand 
to be statements of doctrine which may naturally 
give rise to doubts in the minds of those who 
hear the statements as to whether they are in ac- 
cordance with the doctrines of the Church. And, sir, 
I maintain that it is not well-defined and manifestly 
erroneous doctrines which are causing most trouble 



in our Church at this time, but doubtful statements 
of doctrine, statements of doctrine which create 
general uneasiness in the minds of Churchmen, im- 
easiness as to whether there may not 1 e 
contained in them erroneous and Romish doctrines. 
And, sir, when we have so able and learned 
gentlemen as have been found in this Church 
to make grave statements of doctrines which Lave 
been misunderstood, it is now claimed not merely 
by the simple-minded laity of the Church, but by 
grave clergjmien in the Church, clergymen of emi- 
nent ability in the Church, who have supposed that 
under this form of words there has been 
dangerous error, I say it is the doubtful doc- 
trines which to a large extent are disturb- 
ing the peace of the Church ; and when men 
of the greatest ability after such, as it is claimed, mis- 
understanding of their words in the statement of 
doctrine, come forward and explain that they have 
been misunderstood, what are we to expect from 
lesser minds in our parish churches venturing to 
speak unguarded words which, after all, may turn 
out not to be erroneous, but simply doubtful words .- 
Now, sir, if it should be the effect of such legisla- 
tion as this that our various clergy should be care- 
ful in their doctrinal expressions to keep in the old 
terminology to which our parishes are accustomed, 
not to express the old, well-known doctrines of the 
faith in new terms of doubtful meanings, it would 
be a good thing for our Church. 

And here a point of objection to this Canon is the 
specifications. Sometimes in listening to the urgent 
statements we have had here, I have myself been 
tempted to feel that perhaps it was rather a small 
matter to be entering into these specifications; but 
when I find all around numbers of men sedulously 
exerting themselves to avoid these specifica- 
tions, I am constrained to believe that 
there is some virtue in them after all, 
and that if we lose the specifications we shall lose a 
large part of the merit of this Canon; and, to apply 
the true doctrine of my friend from Wisconsin on 
the right, if we cannot have entire unity and uni- 
formity in all respects, as he went on to 
say that it was better to have forty 
uses in this Church than to have forty 
uses in a single Diocese, I say if we cannot agree in 
all points in our Church, it will be gaining some- 
thing to agree upon these f om' points, that hereaft^i- 
the minds of churchmen shall no longer be disturbed 
by these four innovations upon our doctrine. 

But, sir, it is said that these specifications, after 
all, will avail nothing ; that, define as we may, there 
wiU be astute, learned men capable of walking 
through any Canon that we shall devise, and have 
their own way at last. There may be 
such men ; but I am sure when the 
Church has declared her will in these 
respects, that the true sons of the Church, the 
genuine churchmen of this Church, will observe the 
law, not be studious to find out methods of evading 
the law. I am sure that will be the feeling of the 
churchmen of Virginia, and I believe it will be 
the feeling of sound churchmen in every Diocese of 
this Church. Therefore I shall not think it will be 
a vain thing if we may have even this neasareof 
legislation on the subject. 

For myself, I cannot of course enter upon the 
multitude of questions that have been broached 
here. So well content am I in mind that our chance 
for meeting the wishes of the Church depends on 
our adopting this Canon, that I shall take it as I 
find it, not free from defects, not such as I would 
have it, but such as our very able Committee have 
reported it to us ; I shall take it pure and simple, 
without attempt at amendment. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, obtained the 
floor. 



242 



The PRESIDENT. I wish t j mention the fact to 
the House, for the informatiou of persons who 
desire to speak, that Mr. Blanchai'd, of Maryland, 
has laid an amendment before the House which he 
has had no opportunity of explaining, and as the 
fifteen minutes assigned to the Committee on 
Canons will soon be here, I put it to the justice of 
the House whether Mr. Bianchard should not be 
heard after Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I must endeavor 
to select from what I had intended to say only a few 
points, so as to come within the limited time allowed 
me ; and first of all I would venture to say to those 
gentlemen who have proposed amendments, that if 
they are in favor of the principle which is sought 
to be established by this Canon, they are in fact 
only defeating that principle, unless they are v/ill- 
ing to give up those amendments in favor of the 
general principle. 

One word to a gentleman who announced from 
this platform that it was beneath the dignity of this 
Church to make a Canon of negations. Sir, I was 
brought up in one of those old-fashioned chm-ches 
ia which we looked on the back of the chancel at the 
Ten Commandments ; and I would ask that gentle- 
man whether, if he had been looking at those Ten 
Commandments, nine of which are prohibitions, he 
would have thought it beneath the dignity of this 
body to follow in the same track ^ [Applause.] 

Kbw, sir, I speak merely as a layman, not as a 
giver, but as a receiver of instruction, not as a lead- 
er, but as a follower in the worship of our Church, 
according to the forms of the Prayer-Book : but in 
that capacity claim certain rights which are very 
dear to me as an individual, and not less dear be- 
cause, though one body we are many members, and 
that which appertains to each member in his appro- 
priate sphere is an integral and constituent part 
necessary to the completeness of the whole. 

The point which I wish to make I beg leave to 
read from an English decision — not, let me say, be- 
cause I attach in this American Church authority 
t o English decisions, but because theprmciple seems 
to me to commend itself because of its intrinsic 
merit ; 

" In the public or common prayers and devo- 
tional offices of the Church, all her members 
are expected and entitled to join. It is necessary 
therefore that such forms of worship as are pre- 
scribed by authority for general use should embody 
those beliefs only which are assumed to be generally 
held by members of the Church." 

Again: 

"if the minister be allowed to introduce at his 
o^vn will variations in the rites and ceremonies 
that seem to him to interpret the doctrine of the 
service in a particular direction, the service ceases 
to be what it was meant to be — common groimd 
oa which all church people may meet, though they 
differ about some doctrines. ' 

I must add to that : 

" But the Church of England has wisely left a cer- 
tain latitude of opinion in matters of belief, and has 
not insisted on a rigorous uniformity of thought 
which might reduce her communion to a nari'ow 
compass."^ 

To the establishment of tliis principle this Canon 
saems to me to address itself. I have said that I in- 
tend not to speak as a teacher. I shall assail no 
man's tenets; I shall not even venture to make a 
statement of doctrine, lest by the addition or omis- 
sion of a single letter I might be thought to do in- 
justice to some one. I ask you, according to what 
1 have read, to stand with me upon that which is 
common ground ; and surely if there be one thought 
which is transporting and consoling in connection 
with our membership of the Church, ah ! there are 
many such ; but that to which I ask your attention 



I is that there is such common ground ; it is when 
j two or three only are met together for worship, and 
when we are assured of a presence before which all 
I other feelings .shrink away hke guilty things, save 
those which are included mider one word, and that 
woi'd is love. Now, sir, if the reader of the offices 
of the Church — ^the minister — be allowed to use 
forms or ceremonies which give to that worship an 
interpretation either of individuals or of schools, 
then that common ground is cut away from under 
our feet, and impediments are offered to the devo- 
tions of those who either do not understand or can- 
not enter into them. 

It is the cause of the worshiio of the Church ac- 
cording to the Prayer-Book that I plead for to-day. 
I have said, and read from the Book before me, that 
a certain latitude is allowed. Certainly there is a 
latitude, but that latitude has its proper province, 
and the moment it passes beyond that province, 
it becomes, in the words of one of the Bishops of 
our Church, an abuse and a violation of right. 
I will illustrate by a single instance what I mean ; 
I might by many, but time wiU not allow. Let us 
take the seventeenth Article. I read once in a 
Church newspaper a communication signed " A 
Calvinistic Episcopalian. " I have a rig'ht, then, to 
assume that there are Calvinistic Episcopalians. 
To what extent they carry their Calvinism I 
do not ask ; it does not touch the precise 
point; but if one of those should attempt in the 
service of the Church to introduce any form or 
ceremony which would indicate that the Prayer- 
Book sustains the extreme of Calvinism, I 
should object, and I should say that it was an 
invasion of my rights. I give this illustration be- 
cause it came from a quarter which has not been 
resorted to, and therefore it cannot have any per- 
sonal application. 

It is, I say, the cause of the Prayer-Book that I 
speak for to-day ; in the cause of the Prayer-Book, 
that always, everywhere, in all this broad land, 
into whatever building called by His name I may 
enter for worship, I may be sure of that rendering 
of the sei-vice which any one who is present will 
recognize as catholic, universal, according to the 
teachings of this Chirrch. 

Sir, 1 suppose there is no true churchman but 
whose heart has beat quick as visions have passed 
before him of the Church lengthening her cords and 
strengthening her stakes untU all in this broad land 
shall be counted in her fold. But believe me— and 
as a layman I have had some experiences which do 
not always lie in the path of the clergy — 
believe me that great consummation will not 
be attained except she be everywhere, 
as has been aptly termed, the Church of reconcilia- 
tion, of the reconciliation not only of man to his 
Maker, but of man also to his neighbor ; and unless 
her services are so used that their catholic, univer- 
sal character is not impunged, you will make the 
Prayer-Book appear to hold up to the people not 
that great Scriptural truth, " One Lord, one faith," 
but rather a faith— I will not say disfigured by ac- 
cretions of error, for that would be inconsistent with 
the spirit in which I have attempted to speak— but a 
faith I will only say of chameleon hues, bewilder- 
ing and perplexing by scholastic definitions and met- 
aphysical distinctions, and therefore accepted by 
some and rejected by othei^. 

For these reasons I feel that it will be my 
duty to vote for this Canon, not because it 
may not be made better, but because it seems to me 
the only measure likely to succeed ; the only 
measure likely to establish the principle, at least, 
that there is a law of the Church, and that that law 
must be heeded, and that that law is universal in its 
application. 

Mr, BLANCHARD, of Maryland, Mr. President 



'243 



m.id gentlemen of the Convention, I am rather 
lieie to apologize for the apparent presumption in- 
volved in attempting to amend or present a substi- 
tute for the work of such a Committee as your 
Committee on Canons, than with the idea that what 
I can say can change the vote or impress the mind 
of any one in this audience. 

One thing struck me very much in my experi- 
ence in this House during our eight days of pro- 
tracted secret session. It was assumed by all, of 
whatever shade of theological opinion, that^the can- 
didate before us, sent up by the election of the Dio- 
cese of Illinois for our confii-mation or rejection, 
could not, by any possibility, be confirmed bv this 
House if he did hold the doctrine or practise the 
ceremonial proper to what is known as the doc- 
trine of Eucharistic adoration, nor could he be 
confinned if he held the doctrine and 
practice of what is known as auricular con- 
fession or private absolution. There was no 
attempt made upon the floor of this House on the 
part of any one, when that question was before us, 
to say, _ " Suppose he does hold the doctrine of 
Eucharistic adoration, it is a doctrine allowed by the 
Church.-' The effort of every gentleman 
v>"ho spoke in my hearing and when I was 
present at your deliberations ^was to dis- 
prove that charge, which v/as assumed by 
the House to be in the opinion of the Rouse a dis- 
qualification for the Episcopate. And why? Be- 
cause we stand here as representative men, because 
we are here speaking and feeling within our own 
hearts that there exists throughout the length and 
breadth of the Church an intense and deep f eeling 
which must be expressed thi'ough the representa- 
tives of the people of the Church on this floor, in 
all of their action, in all of their deliberation, in 
all of their legislation. 

I know, sir, no greater disappointment that has 
ever fallen upon the Church, in Maryland, the Dio- 
cese which has done me the honor to send me here 
as one of its Lay Deputies to speak its voice, than 
that which was experienced when the Convention 
of 1871 adjourned without acting upon these vexed 
questions. We all stand agreed here to-day, I be- 
lieve by an enormous majority of this body,"^ that we 
shall defeat the popular voice unless we legislate 
upon the subject. 

Now, the question is, Shall that legislation be a 
legislation final, definite in its character with refer- 
ence to something or other ; or shall it stand as 
vague, indefinite legislation, which shall simply 
throw off from our own shoulders a responsibility 
devolved upon us by law, and to meet which respon- 
sibility the pubhc opinion of the Church calls upon 
us ? Shall we throw off that responsibihty from 
our own shoulders, remit it as it was done in 1868 to 
the House of Bishops, and then when in 
1871 the House of Bishops declined to as- 
sume our responsibility, now in 1874 remit it to the 
Bishop and Standing Committee of each particular 
Diocese? Shall we again throw away from us that 
which is ours to decide as the Council of the Church, 
or shall we meet the question and act? I claim that 
this Canon is so framed— I will not say 'intention- 
ally — that it is no action whatever upon any given 
question, prohibits nothing, enjoins nothing, and 
sirhply constitutes a new tribunal not known to the 
Canonlawof this Church, as laid down in Canon 2 
of Title II., relative to the trial of offences committed 
by ministers. In the first place, the Title of this Canon 
strikes me as singular, and when the Rev. Deputy 
from Alabama [ Rev. Dr. Fulfcon ] had the floor, I 
listened to hear an explanation. Instead of being 
additional sections to be added to Canon 2, Title II., 
" Of Offences for which Ministers may be tried and 
punished," it is an additional section to be added to 
Canon 20. Title I., "Of the Use of the Book of 



Common Prayer." The wbole scope and purpose 
of it is to establish by the definition of this Canon o. 
new offence by express language which is not in- 
chided in direct term.? under Canon 2 of Title II., 
for the trial of offences committed by a minister. 
Now, to pass on to the purpose and character of 
: the Canon, I call your attention to this passage : 
i "If any Bishop" have reason to believe" — 
! I leave "out that which has been criticised by Dr. 

De Koven, the provision about the two Presby- 
I ters. 

! — "that ceremonies or practices during the cele- 
i bration of the Holy Communion, not ordained or 
I authorized in the Book of Common Prayer, and 
i setting forth or symbolizing erroneous or _ doubticl 
j doctrines, have been introduced into a parish " — 
I "And congregation" should certainly be in 
there. 

— " within his jurisdiction, and, as examples, the 
follov.ung are considered as such" — 
I Not "the following are declared to be hereby pro- 
! hibited. " Is such a mere expression of opinion suf- 
! ficlent in this Canon on the subject ? The propriety 
of this suggestion you will see when I come to ex- 
amine the power of the Court to try this Presbyter, 
"a. The use of iiiceri.se. 
j "6. The placing, or carrying, or retaining a Crii- 
I cifix in any part of the place of public worship. 
! "c. The Elevation of the Elements in the Holy 
i Communion in such manner as to expose them to 
the view of people as objects towards which ador- 
! ation is to be made. 

i " c?. Any act of adoration of or towards the Elc- 
I ments in the Holy Commimioir, such as bowings, 
i prostratioirs, genuflexions, and all such like acts not 
I authorized or allowed by the Rubrics of the Book 
j of Common Prayer, it shall be the duty of such 
I Bishop to summon the Standiirg Committe as hir- 
I Council of Advice, and with them to investigate the 
I matter." 

I Now, what do thej^ examine ? Not whether or 
[ not any of the acts hereinbefore specified has been 
I committed. That is not committed to them for ex- 
! amination, but: 

t "If, after investigation, it shall appear to the 
j Bishop and the Standing Committee that erroncoiTS 
I or doubtful doctrines hsTve in fact been set forth or 
i symbolized bj?" ceremonies or practices not ordained 
or authorized as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of 
the Bishop, by instrument of writing imder his 
haird, to admonish." 

So that all the specifications included here are 
mere waste of vv^ords, for, after all, this Council of 
the Church refers to the Standing Committee, to- 
gether with the Bishop of each Diocese, the final 
decision, the final finding as to whether or not the 
use of incense be or he not a symbol of er- 
roneous doctrine, and whether or not the 
elevation of the elements be or be not a sym- 
bol of erroneous doctrine, as to whether 
or not any act of adoration toward the 
elements in "the Holy Communion be or be not a. 
symbol of erroneous doctrine. I say, therefore, 
tirat this Canon declares nothing to be an offence 
whatever, but simply substitutes, in the place of an 
ecclesiastical court as now known, a Bishop and 
Standing Committee as a new court to try the ques- 
tions which were discussed so ably and with so 
much eloquence by the Rev. Deputy from Wiscon- 
sin yesterday. 

Now the scope and purport of the substitute 
which I have offered was to define by the action of 
i this body, as I believe is expected of us by the 
I Church, acts of Eucharistic adoration in sufficiently 
I broad terms to cover all acts commonly laiown and 
i used as indicating that doctrine and to prohibit 
i them, and to put in the hands of the present eccle- 
' siastical authority of each Diocese the power to pun- 



244 



ish them. There is the difference in principle be- 
tween the two Canons. 

I will now refer to the Canon proposed by me as 
you find it in The Churchman, and I think you 
will see that I am correct in my statement of the 
theory on which it is based. Whether that be cor- 
rect or not is another question. 

"The following ceremonies of practices during 
the celebration of the Holy Communion are hereby 
prohibited." 

Then I recite what is recited in the Canon re- 
ported by the Committee, stopping however in 
reciting item "cZ," with the words : 

"Any act of adoration of or towards the Ele- 
ments in the Holy Commimion." 

'•Sec. 2. If any Bishop have reason to believe 
that the ceremonies or practices hereby prohibited 
have been introduced into any parish or congrega- 
tion within his jurisdiction, it shall be his duty, as 
now, and without requiring the assent of the Stand- 
ing Committee to enable him to do it, which 
is requii ed by the Canon reported by the Committee, 
t) admonish in wi'iting the minister of the par- 
ish or congregation aforesaid to discontinue such 
ceremonies or practices ; and, if the minister shall 
disregard such admonition, it shall be the duty of 
t'.ie Standing Committee of the Diocese to cause 
him to be tried before the proper ecclesiastical cornet 
of the Diocese having jurisdiction of the offences for 
which ministers may be tried and punished." 

As now under our Canon — [Here the hammer 
fell.] 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Mr. President, 
I had not intended to say a word on this subject ; 
certainly not when I made a motion to limit the 
time ; but there are one or two points which I now 
want to make. 

It seems to me that these difnculties in regard to 
the proposed Canon are very much like a reported 
interview between the Admiral of the French fleet 
and General Washington. When the fleet "ran up 
into these waters during the Revolutionary War, 
General Washington went down towards the ship to 
meet the Count Rochambeau. As they came back 
again, and were about to go through the gates, which 
were very narrow, the General drew up on one side, 
and bowed to the Frenchman to pass on. The 
Frenchman bowed on the other side, and bowed 
very low for the General to pass in. The General 
said that , he could not think of passing in before 
the representative of His Majesty's forces in 
America. The Count, on the other side, replied 
that it is utterly out of the question that the dele- 
gate of the French King should pass in before the 
General-in-Chief of the armies of America. If they 
had been the General Convention, they would have 
been standing there still. [Laughter.] But, for- 
tunately for them, old Morgan, I think it was, the 
old Kentucky hunter, with his rough hunting-shirt, 
was standing wondering at them, as I harve been 
wondering at these refined distinctions and amend- 
ments to the Canon of the Committee, and finally, 
putting both hands in his pockets, he marched 
through, and left them to f oUow in what way they 
could, [Laughter.] 

Years a^go we started in this matter. Years ago 
we did what a gentleman whom I recognize now 
with great pleasure, and thank God that he is here, 
although I differ from him in what he wishes to do, 
told you to do. Wo were brought up and ship- 
wrecked on the Canons of 1603-4, in Balti- 
more — completely shipwrecked upon a mere 
question that is so far in the abstract 
that I doubt whether one man in fifty has made up 
his mind about it yet. We were asked to assert the 
principle that the Canons of 1603-4 were binding on 
this Church, or else we could not get at Ritual, and 
so we were obliged to assert a falsehood in passing 



the Canons, for I do not believe they are binding, in 
order to get a competent condemnation of Ritual. 

Now, gentlemen, in all cases of this kind the ques- 
tion is whether you pass a Canon that means some- 
thing or not. That is the point. The Canon may 
be imperfect. The Canon must meet all the points. 
The Canon may be capable of the perversion of my 
eloquent friends, and yet the Canon may exactly 
meet the point ; and outside of this Church it is re- 
cognized as meeting the point. Outside of this 
building it is perfectly well understood w'hat the 
Canon means. It means either the downfall or the 
victory of Ritualism. 

I was given a letter by my good friend from Vir- 
ginia on Sunday night, and, if I had the time, I 
would like to read it. I know the eloquence, I 
know the earnestness of the gentleman. I do not 
know the writer ; I do not know but that he is some 
man full of fire, full of right spirit ; but the point 
that he makes is that this Convention, by a foregone 
conclusion, intends to condemn the Ritualists, 
whatever Canon be passed, no matter 
what they do, and if they do it, what then ? " We 
wiU all go back ; we will" be Old Catholics ; we vdll 
go where these things are all practised," and his 
words have the ring in them of rebellion, and men 
stand here taking aim ; it may not be constitutional, 
it is well to be cautious about it ; it ma,y not ex- 
actly meet this ; it may put two Presbyters in a 
somewhat uncomfortable position to do that, and 
we had better w-ait a little while ; do not be quite 
so rapid about it. Gentlemen, fire! [Laughter.] 

A member of the C. B. S. called on me who had 
been a former assistant. I believe he was one of 
their honorable secretaries. A very large symbol 
or flag hung before him. He began to attempt to 
prove that he aixd I v^ere alike ; that he as a mem- 
ber of the C. B. S. and I were standing in about 
the same position. I said to him, "I will give you 
my position. You go and tell any member of the 
C. B. S. who wants to know it that any man who 
bows toward the Altar, who worships any presence 
of Christ in, under, upon, above, below, before, be- 
hind, or in any way contingent on the presence of 
Chi-ist there, in my judgment — and God forgive me 
if I say a word now to hurt any man's feelings — is 
in the Church what Benedict Arnold was in the 
State, and any man of the sixty denominations of 
Protestants, on the broadest plank of them, is nearer 
to me in my judgment and my opinions as a church- 
man than that man. " 

The Canon of 1640 does not bind this Church any 
more than the Canons of 1603, but it does interpret 
the language of Laud and Andrewes, and aU of that 
school, as well as any language has been capable of 
interpreting them, and declares that any bowing in 
the church toward the altar, toward the Communioii 
table, toward any part of the church, or any act of 
adoration in the church except as to the presence of 
Almighty God, is forbidden in the Church of England ; 
and I maintain that the plain, candid, practical mean- 
ing of that black Rubric, as it Avas written by Cran- 
mer, and as it lay upon the page of the Prayer-Book 
undisturbed imtil 1661— that it was then taken as the 
expression of the Church of England by Cranmer, I 
know. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. No, sir. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I beg your par- 
don. That has denied to us all the radical principles 
that are the evil of the system of Ritualism. 

The other proposition is that the Bishop in some 
way or other is to proceed. How ? He cannot take 
hearsay. He cannot listen to this one and that one 
coming to him. The idea is that there shall be com- 
plaint by two responsible men before the subject is 
investigated. Is not that a perfectly fair and sound 
principle ? Is it not well that there should be pro- 
per endoi'sers for a statement of that land ? Shall 



245 



clergymen be brought up for investigation without 
n proper endorsement of those whose responsibili- 
ty is such that it can be brought to bear directly up- 
on them ^ 

Now, sir, I must talk in a hurry, and therefore I 
am only trymg to leap as it were at the point. I 
hold it to be a simple matter of ordinary common 
sense that this Convention must meet this question. 
Six years the Church has been waiting. Once we 
had a Committee betweentimes, and were stranded 
and shipwrecked. Now we have had a proposition 
brought in by the Committee on Canons composed of 
some of the best men and best-informed minds in the 
Chm-ch, those who know what is Constitution and law. 
It seems to me that the most certain way to defeat the 
Canon is to amend it. The most certain way to defeat 
it and to destroy the whole is to confuse this assembly 
by a variety of movements, bringing in one amend- 
ment after another, confusing one with another, 
so many men with that and so many men with this, 
and you at last do nothing and go back again to your 
constituents to have them ask you what 
has been done. Gentlemen, wo are in a world 
that is moving on, and we are in a world 
that demands of the Episcopal Church some like 
action, God has placed us here to reach the wave of 
popular will, and it may be that God has placed us 
here to control the world, to bring it into subjection 
to the Gospel, and it is the fair right of the Ameri- 
can mind to ask of the Episcopal Church to let them 
know what is her clear and undoubted teaching on 
this matter. 

I hold that this is a logical sequence of what has 
been done. I voted that the reverend gentleman, 
who was elected by that Diocese, should be made 
Bishop of Illinois. If we now go home defeated, if 
the point that is brought up here is not completed, 
it seems to me that we must feel that we have done 
an injustice. I have for that man that af- 
fection and confidence that I believe it 
^vould be the hardest thing for me to face 
the fact that the Convention, after saying to him, 
and in saying as they did in sa.ying to the American 
world, and by that I mean at large, the Church else- 
where, that no man shall be Bishop in tliis Chm-ch 
unless he is perfectly above aU question on these 
matters, now hesitate to unfurl the flag and let men 
see what it is you condemn. Yea, I would 
that God would send down His Holy Spirit 
on this Convention, and after we have passed a 
Canon on Ritual that might hereafter remedy these 
diflaculties, I would to God it might be in our power 
and might be in our hearts then to turn and take up 
again those papers, and send them back to Illinois, 
and, after all we have done, to allow there may be 
a Christian, a solemn, and a most sacred mode of 
reconsideration. 

I am of no party, I know nothing at all of any 
party connected with these matters; but it seems to 
me it would be acting with a course that would 
have the blessing of God upon it if, after passing 
the Canon, if after allaving the doubts, if 
after setthng the difficulties that have be- 
set us thus far, we could then turn, and in- 
stead of meeting a brother with what would t e to 
me a broken heart, instead of leaving a man to go 
and hereafter know that the brand of the Church 
had been put upon him, to take him again and send 
back to those men who elected him the opportunity 
of reviewing the case,- that those terrible doubts, 
that those fearful letters that came in — 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania, I rise to a ' 
point of order. The gentleman is arraigning this ! 
conviction. | 

Rev, Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I beg pardon j 
for any such implication. i 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania, | 
rose. 



The PRESIDENT. You have but five minutes. 
Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pemisylvania. 
Three minutes will be enough. I wish simply to 
ask a question of the Committee on Canons, and one 
member of that Committee, I think, will understand 
the reason. It is to guide me in my vote, that I 
may know whether I shall not more effectively 
reach the object proposed by voting for the 
amendment proposed by Dr. 'De Koven or that 
of Mr. Blanchard. In convei'sation with a 
member of that Committee, T raised the 
point that there was in that amendment 
a more distinct sta.tement and prohibition of certain 
doctrines and acts, and I understood him to tell me 
that the Committee on Canons had purposely so 
planned their Canon that it did not deny the doc- 
trines here mentioned as being forbidden or as be- 
ing erroneous and doubtful doctrines, that it 
meant to leave that as an open point. New 
if it be the intention of the Committee on Canons 
so to frame this Canon that it will leave that point 
doubtful, the members of this Convention should 
understand it, and vote for the clear, definite, pos- 
itive language of the amendment proposed. I wish 
their answer when they speak. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Mr. President, it 
is with great diffidence and distrust of myself that at 
the direction of the Committee on Canons I now 
proceed to close this debate. Certainly the more 
when I have only fifteen minutes in which to reply 
to all the attacks on the one side and on the other 
with which this Canon has been assailed. I do not 
propose to discuss the question within this hmited 
time theologically or even practically, but my pur- 
pose is simply to bring the attention of the Conven- 
tion to the Canon itself, and to explain, to the best of 
my ability, what is the scope and w h&t will be the 
effect of that Canon, pro^aded it meet the approval 
of the two Houses of this Convention. I think that, 
to a great extent, this has been lost sight 
of. We have had a great many most bril- 
liant speeches upon the subject of Ritualism, 
both setting forth its dangers and its advan- 
tages, to none of which, either on the one side or 
the other, will I now addi'ess hiyself ; but I will 
simply take up the Canon which the Committee 
have reported to you, and I shall endeavor, by ex- 
plaining what it does mean, in that way to reply 
to the objections which have been made to it. I 
shall deem that to be the best method of answer- 
ing them. 

In the first place, therefore, I ask you to read this 
Canon with the parts in parentheses" left out. That 
will show you what the Canon pro^-ides, and I think 
it will explain away a great many of the difficul- 
ties which have been suggested, because 
its scope has certainly been miscon- 
ceived by many gentlemen who have 
addressed you, and it will at least show you what 
the Committee, as the result of theii" deliberation, 
have presented to this House. We all know that 
where a matter is placed in parentheses, it may te 
omitted without disturbing the context of what goes 
before and what foUows. 

Therefore, without attempting to read it, I will 
simply state that this Canon provides substantially 
that if any practices or ceremonies which set forth 
or symbolize erroneous or doubtful doctrine have 
been introduced into any parish, it shall be 
the duty of the Bishop, either upon his own 
; motion or upon the complaint of two Presbyters, 
• to institute an investigation.^ That is the first thing 
to be done. There is no offence defined there ; 
I there is nothing prohibited there. We may, I 
' think, assume that any minister who does teach er- 
roneous doctrine has violated the law of the 
Church, We sim^^ly provide a method of in- 
vestigating whether he has set forth or sym- 



246 



bolized false doctrines in a certain way. If, upon 
this investigation, it be found that in point of fact 
such doctrines have been taught or symbolized, then 
it becomes the duty of the Bishop to admonish him 
to discontinue such practices and acts. 

So far, there is no definition of an offence ; there 
is no forbidding of the doing or the not doing of any 
particular act; but now comes, and for the first 
time, the offence at which this Canon is aimed, and 
that is the refusal of the Presbyter whose acts have 
been decided by the Bishop, acting by and with the 
advice of the Standing Committee, to set forth or 
symbolize erroneous or doubtful doctrines. When 
he refuses to obey the admonition of his Bishop, 
then is committed the offence for which he is to be 
tried, and then only. 

That, gentlemen, is the full scope and effect of 
this Canon, it does not forbid in terms certain 
practices to be introduced, because there were mem- 
bers on that Committee who would not have con- 
sented to introduce into this House any Canon which 
ventured to interfere with the Ritual of the Church, 
either by commandiag or prohibiting, believing 
that that was a matter which was sacred to the Ru- 
brics, and that we by Canon had no right to inter- 
fere with those Rubrics, either by positive or hj ne- 
gative legislation ; but we did have the right to 
forbid a minister to do or not to do certain acts 
which, in the opinion of his Bishop, did symbolize 
or set forth erroneous or doubtful doctrine, and 
that for the peace and good order of the Church. 

With that explanation I ask you to interpret what 
has been put in by way of parenthesis. It was said 
that this general method of dealing with this sub- 
ject, this simply forbidding acts which, in the opin- 
ion of the Bishop, set forth or symbolized false or 
erroneous doctrine, was not sufficient, but that it 
was needful, in order to clear all doubts as to what we 
meant, that some, at least, of these acts which were 
before us should be specified, and you will notice 
the cautious language with which these specifica- 
tions are introduced. We do not say that they are 
forbidden. We do not say absolutely that they are 
unlav/ful. We do not by law declare them to be 
such ; but we sifnply say that in the opinion 
of the Committee, as individuals or as a 
Committee, and that in the opinion of 
this House and the House of Bishops, 
if the Canon be approved, these particular acts are 
sjrtnbolical of doubtful or erroneous doctrine. It 
does not foreclose the case. It has not the effect 
even of a declaratory law ; it simply ex- 
presses the deliberate opinion and convic- 
tion of this Convention that such and such acts, 
among others, do symbolize or set forth erroneous or 
doubtful doctrines, leaving it to be decided hereafter 
in the proper way whether they do or do not, but 
giving the weight of the opinion of this Convention 
to the affirmative side of the question. 

Now, Mr. President and gentlemen, I ask your at- 
tention to the word "doubtful," which has been the 
source of much criticism ; and I will tell you why 
that word was chosen by the Committee. It was 
for this reason: When a Bishop and a Standing 
Committee have decided that the clergyman whose 
practices are under consideration has by acts 
set forth or symbolized certain doctrines, his acts 
should not be thereby stamped as having taught 
erroneous doctrine ; it might leave it charitably to 
be supposed that the Bishop and Standing Commit- 
tee had only considered that the doctrine was a 
doubtful one ; and as such, with a view of securing 
the peace of the Church, they had a right to 
forbid it. This Canon gives the Bishop, with the 
advice of the Standing Committee, the right to for- 
bid a practice which, in their opinion, sets forth a 
doubtful doctrine. 
And here I call your attention to a matter which 



has not yet even been alluded to ; there is a provifeo 
to this Canon which has not been called to 
your attention, and it is an impoi'tant matter. 
You will observe that the proviso to Subsection 
2 is "that nothing herein contained shall prevent 
the presentment, trial, and punishment of any 
mini5ter under the provisions of Section 1, 
of Canon 2, Title II., of the Digest." The 
provision which we propose by this Canon runs 
side by side with Canon 2, which jou may- 
all turn to, and which sets forth offences 
for which a minister may be tried. Among 
others is that of the teaching of fake doctrines. 
There is nothing in this Canon v/hich will prohibit 
the question from being raised under the mode of 
trial which may be prescribed in the Dioceses for 
violating that Canon in any of the particulars. The 
object of this is simply to provide another method 
not only of reaching the teaching of false and erro- 
neous doctrine, but of preventing the setting forth 
or symbolizing of doubtful doctrine, and that, as I 
said before, for the peace of the Church. 

There has been an objection made by the gentle- 
man from Maryland [Rev. Dr. Lev/in] that we en- 
croached upon that portion of the Constitution 
w^hich prescribed that the mode of trying ministers 
shall be or may be prescribed by the Dioceses. I do 
not know whether it is necessary to go into these 
particulars, but that matter was before the Com- 
mittee, and we were all unanimously of the opinion 
that it did not affect or touch that question, be- 
cause the trial mider this Canon will only come 
on after the minister has committed the offence, 
and it can only come on after the action of the 
Standing Committee. The Standing Committee 
and the Bishop have not tried him ; they have not 
decided that any offence has been committed for 
which he may be disciplined. But after he has 
committed the offence of which I have spoken, 
which simply is the refusal to obey the admonition of 
his Bishop, the Standing Committee will then sim- 
ply provide that he be tried under the provision 
of the Diocese for that offence. They have not yet 
tried him, nor do they, under the provisions of this 
Canon, proceed to try him ; but this Canon makes 
it their duty to see that he is tried under the pro- 
visions which the Constitution and Canons of his 
own Diocese may have provided to meet the case. 

Inasmuch as the remarks which I have to make 
are limited, I do not know that it will be necessary 
for me to go any further than I have gone. The 
Committee on Canons desire, of course, that this 
Canon shall be passed just as it is. They think if 
any amendments be adopted by the House it will 
endanger the success of the entire measure. They 
leave that, of course, to the wisdom of the House. 
They only say that this Canon in the shape 
that it now is presented is the only one which, after 
careful and prayerful discussion, thej'^ were able to 
unite upon. Whether this House will proceed to 
adopt different amendments to it, will make the 
Canon better than it is, or will defeat it, is a ques- 
tion which will be submitted to the wisdom of the 
House. We do think, however, that if amendments 
shall be adopted, the whole Canon will be endangered. 
And, therefore, with a view of testing the feeling 
of the House upon that question, as to whether the 
Canon shall go through without amendment, or 
whether the House will throw it open to any amend- 
ments which may be brought forward, I am instruct- 
ed by the Committee to move, as I now do, that all 
the amendments which have been offered, and 
all the substitutes, be laid on the table. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Before 
the gentleman takes his seat, I would like to suggest 
an amendment, for the purpose of perfecting the 
Canon. It will be observed that in this Canon there 
is no provision made for declaring the minister of 



247 



(he parish to have introduced the objectionable 
practice or to have given it his sanction. Now, 
car experience as rectors of parislies is that our peo- 
ple go ahead of us very far in the matter of Ritual, 
and that there are a great many who would come 
under the condemnation of the part marked d in 
the proposed Canon when the clergyman him^self is 
wholly g-uiltless. [ ' ' Order, Order. " j 

The PRESIDENT. The House is unwilling to 
Iiear the Deputy. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. . I wish 
simply to present the matter to the Committee on 
Canons. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to lay the amend- 
ments and the substitute on the table. 
The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I move the adop- 
tion of the Canon. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. I now move an 
amendment, of which I gave notice. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I move to lay it 
on the table. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. I desire to have 
it read. 

Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. I 
rise to a question of order. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. It cannot 
be read. The hour has arrived for taking the vote, 
and that is the only business of this Housb at this 
time. It was read by the gentleman himself in his 
speech. 

The PRESIDENT. It was not then before the 
House. I presume the gentleman has a right to 
have it read. He has a minute left before the time 
for voting. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. I offer it as an 
amendment, and as an amendment I have a right 
to have it read. 

The Secretary proceeded to read the amendment. 

Mr. MAS SI E, of Virginia. I rise to a question 
of order. That amendment was pending before the 
House and was laid, by vote of the House, on the 
table. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is mistaken. 

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. Then I raise another 
question of order: that this House determined to 
vote at four o'clock, and nothing else can now be, 
entertained. The time has arrived for voting. 

The PRESIDENT. The hour had not arrived 
when this amendment was offered. 

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. But it has arrived 
now, and the House cannot entertain anything, but 
must vote. I make that distinct point of order, 
and ask the ruling of the Chair upon it. 

The PRESIDENT. I overnile the point of or- 
der. The thing will be laid on the table in one 
minute after the Secretary finishes it. 

The Secretary resumed and concluded the reading 
of the amendment. 

The PRESIDENT. The Deputy from Pittsburgh 
moves to lay the amendment on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is now on the 
resolution of the Committee on Canons. 

Rev. Mr. GRAY, of Tennessee. Tennessee caUs 
for a vote by orders. 

Rev. Dr. feCHENCK, of Long Island. I hope that 
call wiU be withdi awn. I think the House will carry 
it by acclamation. It will be much more impres- 
sive. 

Mr. BATTLE, of North Carolina. It is much 
more impressive to vote by orders. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Kentucky asks 
for a vote by orders. 

The PRESIDENT. That has already been asked 
for by the Diocese of Tennessee. 

The Secretary called the roll, with the following 
result : 



CLERICAL VOTE. 

Alabama.— 'Rqy. Dr. Banister, Rev. Dr. Strin'>-- 
fellow. Rev. Dr. Fulton, and Rev. Mr. Cobbs, aye 

Albany.— Re-v. Dr. Payne, Rev. Dr. Tucker, Rev, 
Dr. Beers, and Rev. Dr. Brown, necy. 

Arkansas.— 'Rqy. Mr. Trimble and Rev. Mr. 
Brace, aye. 

California.— Rqy. Mr. Birdsall, Rev. Mr. Easton, 
and Rev. Mr. Githens, aye. Rev. Mr. Chetwood, 
nay. 

Central New York.— Rqy. Dr. Van Deusen, Rev. 
Dr. Wilson, Rev. Dr. Ajrrault, and Rev. Mr. Hitch- 
cock, aye. 

Central Pennsylvania.— Rqy. Dr. Paret, Rev. 
Dr. Breck, Rev. Mr. Marple, and Rev. Mr. Leve- 
rett, aye. 

Connecticut.— Rqy. Dr. Mead, Rev. Dr. Beards- 
ley, Rev. Mr. Johnson, and Rev. Dr. Clark, aye. 

Delaivare.—RQY. Mr. Spencer, Rev. Mr. Hotch- 
kin, Rev. Mr. Stone, and Rev. Mr. Douglass, aye. 

Easton.— ReY.Mr. Barber, Rev. Dr.Crosdale, and 
Rev. Dr. Fulton, aye. Rev. Dr. Stearns, nay. 

Florida.— Rqy. Mr. Thackara, Rev. Dr. Scott, and 
Rev. Mr. Mumford, aye. 

Georgia.— Rqy. Mr. Rees, Rev. Mr. Clarke, Rev. 
Dr. Williams, Rev. Dr. Benedict, aye. 

Illinois.— Rqy. Dr. Chase, Rev. Dr. Corbett, and 
Rev. Dr. SulUvan, aye. Rev. Mr. Knowles, nay. 

Indiana.— Rqy. Dr. Wakefield, aye. Rev. Mr. 
Dunham, nay. 

loiva.—RQY. Mr. Mcllwain, Rev. Mr. Trimblej 
Rev. Mr. Goodhue, aye. 

Kansas.— Rqy. Dr. Reynolds, Rev. Mr. Bakewell, 
Rev, Mr. Dunn, and Rev. Mr. Beatty, aye. 

Kentucky.— Rqy. Dr. Craik, Rev. Dr. Perkins, 
Rev. Mr. Shipman, and Rev. Mr. Pettis, aye. 

Long Island.— Rqy. Dr. Hall, Rev. Dr. Schenck, 
Rev. Dr. DiUer, and Rev. Dr. Haskins, aye. 

LGuisiana.—RQY. Mr. Adams, Rev. Mr. Girault, 
and Rev. Dr. DalzeU, aye. Rev. Mr. Harris, nay. 

Maine.— Rqy. Mr. LeflSngwell, Rev. Mr. Upjohn, 
Rev. Mr. Ward, and Rev. Dr. Pise, aye. 

Ma7'yland.—RQY. Dr. Button, Rev. Dr. Lewin, 
Rev. Dr. Leeds, and Rev. Dr. Dudley, aye. 

Massachusetts. — Rev. Dr. Vinton, Rev. Dr. Hunt- 
ington, Rev. Dr. Burgess, and Rev. Dr. Lambert, 
aye. 

Michigan.— Rqy. Mr. GiUespie, aye. Rev. Mr. 
Brown and Rev. Mr, Yi orthington, nay, 

Minnesota.— Rqy. Dr. McMasters, Rev. Dr. Kid- 
ney, and Rev. Dr. Knickerbacker, aye. 

Mississippi. — Rev. Dr. Sansom, Rev. Mr. Douglas^ 
and Rev. Mr. Marks, aye. 

Missouri. — Rev. Dr. Runeie and Rev. Mr Jen- 
nings, aye. 

Nebraska.— Rqy. Dr. Garrett, Rev. Mr. Shaw, 
and Rev. Mr. Goodale, aye. 

New Hampshire.— Rqy. Dr. Hubbard, Rev. Dr. 
Henick, and Rev. Mr. Haughton, aye. 

Neiv Jersey.— Rqy. Dr. Abercrombie, Rev. Dr. 
Clark, and Rev. Mr. Garrison, aye ; Rev. Dr. Far- 
rington, nay. 

New York.— Rqy. Dr. Cooke, Rev. Dr. Beach, and 
Rev. Dr. Geer, aye. Rev. Dr. Cady, nay. 

North Carolina. — Rev. Dr. Watson, Rev. Dr. 
Smedes, Rev. Dr. Buxton, and Rev. Mr. Huske, 
aye. 

Ohio.— Rqy. Dr. Burr, Rev. Dr. Boyd, Rev. Mr. 
Jewett, and Rev. Mr. Farr, aye. 

Pennslyvania.—RQY. Dr. Rudder, Rev. Mr. Bol- 
ton, Rev. Dr. Davies, aye. 

Pittsburgh.— Rqy. Dr. Scarborough, Rev. Mr, 
Getz, and Rev. Mr. Smith, aye ; Rev. Dr. Spalding, 
nay. 

Rhode Island.— Rqy. Mr. Henshaw, Rev. Mr. 
Seymour, Rev. Mr. Goodwin, and Rev. Mr. Locke,, 
aye. 

South Carolina.— Rqy. Mr. Pinckney, Rev. Dr. 



248 



Elliott, Rev. Mr. Porter, and Rev. Mr. McColIough, 

tiye. 

" Tennessee.— Rey. Mr. Gray, Rev. Dr. Harrison, 
Rev. Dr. Beckett, and Rev. Dr. Humes, aye. 

Texas. — Rev. Mr. Rogers, Rev. Mr. Bird, Rev. 
Mr. Richardson, and Rev. Mr. Davenport, aye. 

Ve'i^iont. — Rev. Dr. Douglass, Rev. Mr. Bliss, 
and Rev. Mr. Atwill, aye. Rev. Mr. Putnarn, nay. 

Virginia. — Rev. Dr. Andrews, Rev. Dr. Norton, 
Rev. Mr. Hanckel, and Rev. Dr. Minnigerode, aye. 

Western Neio York. — Rev. Dr. Shelton, Rev. Dr. 
Foote, Rev. Dr. Rankine, and Rev. Mr. Mann, aye. 

Wisconsin. — Rev. Dr. Adams, Rev. Mr. Half, 
and Rev. Mr. Ten Broeck, aye. Rev. Dr. De Koven, 
nay, 

LAY VOTE. 

^4 /a6ama.— Messrs. Dawson and Bray, aye. 

Albany. — Messrs. Meads, Forsyth, and Keese,nay. 

California. — Messrs. Webb and Walsh, aye. 

Central New York. — Messrs. Chedell, McWhorter, 
Comstock, and Clarke, aye. 

Central Pennsylvania. — Messrs. Coppde, Lamber- 
ton, and Rockwell, aye. 

Connecticut. — Messrs. Stark, Robertson, and Hay- 
den, aye. 

Delaware. — ^Slessrs. Fell and Curtis, aye. 
Easton — Messrs. Mackall, Walker, and Golds- 
borough, aye. 
Florida. — Mr. Daniel, aye. 

(?eor(7ta.— Messrs. Jenkins, Whittle, and Mont- 
gomery, aye. 

Illinois. — Messrs. Otis and Whitehouse, aye. 

Indiana. — Mr. Morrison, aye. 

Jo wet.— Messrs. Bever and Daymude, aye. 

Kansas. — Messrs. Farnsworth, Bartholow, and 
Todd, aye. 

Kentucky. — Messrs. Stevenson, Cornwall, Church- 
ill, and Bullock, aye. 

Long Island. — Messrs. Pierrepont, Hunter, and 
King, aye. 

Louisiana. — Messrs. Race and Biscoe, aye. 
Maine. — Messrs. Bridge and Jackson, aye. 
Mainland. — Messrs Brune, Blanchard, and Blair, 
aye. 

Massachusetts. — Messrs. Mudge and Mason, aye. 
Mr. Shattuck, nay. 

Michigan. — Messrs. Trowbridge and Baldwin, aye. 

Minnesota.— M.QS,SYS. Wilder, At water, and Keese, 
aye. 

Mississippi. — Mr. Pegues, aye. 
Missouri.— Messrs. Bodley, Douglass, and Simp- 
son, aye. 

New Hampshire. — Messrs. Farwell and Low, aye. 
New Jersey. — Mr. Meigs, aye. Mr. Garthwaite, 
nay. 

New York. — Mr. Ruggles, aye. Messrs. Livingston 
and Davies, nay. 

North Carolina. — Messrs. Battle, De Rossett, and 
Smith, aye. Mr. Martin, nay. 

0/i.io.— Messrs. Andrews, Moss, Horton, and Dev- 
ereaux, aye. 

Pennsylvania. — Messrs. Harrison, Welsh, Coffin, 
and Hazlehurst, aye. 

Pittsburgh.— Messrs. Shoenberger, Bm-gwin, and 
Howe, aye. Mr. Cass, nay. 

Rhode Island. — Messrs. Richmond, Hoppin, and 
King, aye. 

South Carolina.— Messrs. McCrady, Lesesne, and 
Smith, aye. 

Tennessee. — Messrs. Thomijson, Stephens, Cooper, 
and Fairbanks, aye. * 

Texas. — Messrs. Augur and Jackson, aye. 

Vermont. — Mr. Canfield, nay. 

Virginia. — Messrs. Sheffey, Parker, Massie, and 
Taylor, aye. 

Western New For/c.— Messrs. Parshall, Smith, 
Cuyler, and Montgomery, aye. 
Wisconsin. — Mr. Clark, aye. 



RECAPITULATION. 

Clergy.— Dioceses voting, 41. Aye, 88 ; nay, 2; 
divided, 1. 

Laity. — Dioceses voting, 39. Aye, 35; nay, 3; 
divided, 1. 
So it was 

' ' Resolved (The House of Bishops concuning), that; 
the following additional section be added to Canon 
20, Title I., ^Of the Use of the Book of Common 
Prayer ' : 

" Sec. 2. [l]If any Bishop have reason to believe 
or if complaint be made to him in writing 
by two or more of his Presbyters, that ceremonies 
or practices during the celebration of the Holy 
Communion, not ordained or authorized in the 
Book of Common Prayer, and setting forth or sym- 
bolizing erroneous or doubtful doctrines, have been 
introduced into a parish within his jurisdiction 
(and, as examples, the following are declared to be 
considered as such : 

"a. The use of incense. 

"6. The placing, or carrying, or retaining a cruci- 
fix in any part of the place of public worship. 

"c. The Elevation of the Elements in the Holy 
Communion in such manner as to expose them to 
the view of people as objects towards which 
adoration is to be made. 

" d. Any act of or adoration of or towards the 
Elements in the Holy Commimion, such as bowings, 
prostrations, genuflections, and all such like acts not 
authorized or allowed by the Rubrics of the Book of 
Common Prayer), it shall be the duty of such Bi- 
shop to summon the Standing Committee as his 
Council of Advice, and with them to investigate 
the matter. 

" [2.] If, after investigation, it shall appear to the 
Bishop and the Standing Committee that erroneous 
or doubtful doctrines have in fact been set forth or 
symbolized by ceremonies or practices not ordained 
or authorized as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the 
Bishop, by instrument of writing, under his hand, 
to admonish the Minister of the Parish to disconti- 
nue such practices or ceremonies ; and if the Minis- 
ter shall disregard such admonition, it shall be the 
duty of the Standing Committee to cause him to be 
tried for a breach of his ordination vow. Provided 
that nothing herein contained shall prevent the pre- 
sentment, trial, and punishment of any minister 
under the provisions of Section 1, of Canon 2, Title 
II., of the Digest, 

"[8] In aU investigations under the provisions of 
this Canon, the minister whose acts or practices are 
the subject-matter of the investigation shall be no- 
tified, and have opportunity to be heard in his 
defence. The charges preferred and the findings of 
the Bishop and Standing Committee shall be in 
writing, and a record shall be kept of the proceed- 
ings in the case," 

Mr, McCRADY, of South Carolina. I move that 
the House adjourn. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. If there is a 
general understanding that I can get up the Hymnal 
in the morning, I will say aye. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to adjourn, 

PRESIDING- ElSnOP. 

A message (No. 51) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the following 
resolution : 

"Resolved, That this House concurs in Message 
No. 34 from the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
asking for a Joint Committee with reference to some 
plan of relief for the Presiding Bishop ; 

"And that this House has appointed as members 
of such Committee the Bishop of Ohio, the Bishop 
of Indiana, and the Bishop of Pennsylvania." 



249 



The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; and the House ad- 
journed until to-morrow morning at nine o'clock. 



NINETEENTH DAY. 

Wednesday, October 28. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
nine a.m. 

Morning Prayer was said to the Creed by Rev. 
John M. Banister, d.d., of Alabama. The Creed 
and Prayers were said by Rev. Robert W. Trimble, 
of Arkansas, who also pronounced the Benediction. 

LEAVES OF ABSENCE. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the Com- 
mittee on Elections, reported that leave of absence 
for the remainder of the session had been granted 
to Ml'. R. C. Mackall, of the Diocese of Easton, Mr. 
Richard H. Smith, of the Diocese of North Carolina, 
and Mr. Frederick W. Brune, of the Diocese of 
Maryland. 

Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. We 
have referred all applications for leave of absence 
to this Committee with power to act. I move, 
therefore, that whenever they make a report here- 
after they inform the Convention whether the 
leaves that they have granted will leave the delega- 
tion to which the Dej)uty belongs without represent- 
ation. It is an impoi'tant fact for us to know. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky. The Com- 
mittee on Elections do not consider themselves at 
liberty to grant a leave of absence that would leave 
a Diocese without representation. 

GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I have 
the I'eport of the Committee on the General Theo- 
logical Seminary, as amended by the Committee. I 
would like to ask whethei* I shall read the whole re- 
port or simply the paragraph which has been 
changed by the Committee smce the recommitment ^ 

The PRESIDENT. If it has been read once, it 
need not be read again. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I will 
read, then, the paragraph which has been changed. 
It is as follows : 

The Committee further report that they have 
prepared the accompanying list of Clerical and Lay 
Trustees, which, after" being passed upon by this 
House, is to be sent to the House of Bishops for its 
approval. This list has been compiled from the cer- 
tificates forwarded to this House, as required by 
Canon 4 of Title HI., and containing the nomina- 
tion by the Diocese of a trustee or trustees, and 
without which certificate the Canon expressly pro- 
vides that the nomination shall not be confirmed. 
The Dioceses from whicli the canonical certificates 
were received are the following 

Then follow the names— thirty-one in all. I pre- 
sent i;lie report thus amended, and move the adop- 
tion of the resokition appended to the report. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I should like to 
hear it read by the Secretary. 

The (Secretary read as follows: 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). That 
the Trustees named in the accompanying list be con- 
fir) ned as members of the Board of the General 
Theological Seminary for the next three years." 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Is the resolution 
before us '! 

The PRESIDENT. If the matter is to be argued 
or objected to, it w ill have to go on the Calendar. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I hope it will go 
on the Calendar, as I have very serious objections 
to make to it. 



The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be placed 
on the Calendar. 

FINAL ADJOURNMENT. 

Rev. Mr. GETZ, of Pittsburgh. I desire to offer 
the following resolution : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That a Joint Committee be appointed to arrange a 
time for the final adjournment of this Convention." 

And, if it be in order, I would suggest that this 
Joint Committee be, on the part of this House, the 
Joint Committee for fixing the place of the meeting 
of the next Convention, to save the necessity of ap- 
pointing another committee. 
: The resolution was agreed to. 

I The PRESIDENT. The gentleman who moved 
! the resolution suggested that the Committee on 
! the part of this House be the same Committee that 
was appointed to consider the place for the next 
meeting of the Convention. The Chair hears no ob- 
\ jection to that stiggestion ; and that Committee will 
accordingly act. 

SYNODS OP DIOCESES. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I should like 
to ask of the House the suspension of the sixteenth 
rule of order in order to enable me to introduce a 
resolution. A few moments will enable me to say 
I what the subject-matter is. The Committee on 
Canons, to whom was referred a Canon, entitled 
" Of the Formation of Synods of Dioceses," have re- 
ported, asking to be discharged on the ground that 
they have not time, at this late hour of the session, 
to enter into the consideration of the subject-matter. 
Had we more time, it is possible that this Canon 
might have been brought up for discussion ; but as 
this is not likely to be the case now, I desire to move 
for the appointment of a joint commission, in order 
that the matter may be taken under consideration 
during^^the l ecess. 

This, indeed, is a measure of relief simply to those 
Dioceses that have divided or are about to be di- 
vided. They realize the importance of it. Per- 
haps, other Dioceses do not. I therefore ask a sus- 
pension of the rules m order to move for the appoint- 
ment of a Joint Commission, to consist of three Bish- 
ops, three clergymen, and laymen, to report to the 
next Convention on this subject. If this permis- 
sion is granted, I will introduce my resolution in due 
form. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I would like 
to ask the gentleman a question. Is it only to pro- 
vide for Dioceses that we have divided '^^ If that 
is all, we have a Canon ah*eady for the confederation 

j of Dioceses in the same State. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. That has 
been found inadequate. It does not meet the want 

I of other Dioceses. I will read the resolution which 
I hope to be allowed to offer, and it will explain 
itself: 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That a joint commission, to consist of three Bishops, 
three Presbyters, and three laymen, be appointed 
to report to the next General Convention a Canon, 
or a constitutional amendment, or whatever legisla- 
j tion may be necessary, to authorize the formation 
j of Synods of Dioceses, or some kind of ecclesiastical 
j union of Dioceses, within the same State or Com 
monwealth." 
1 do not wish to discuss the matter at all. It is, 
I as I said, a measure of relief for the Dioceses which 
1 have divided or propose to divide. At any rate, 
the matter can be carefully thought over by such 
j a commission. I now ask the permission of the 
i House to suspend the rules in order that I may in- 
j troduce the resolution. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I hope the 
I permission will be granted. 



250 



The PRESIDENT. It is moved to suspend the ; 
sixteeiitli rule so as to allow the introduction of , 
the resolution which has been read. i 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I now offer j 
the resolution. ! 

The resolution was read by the Secretary. | 

Mr. KING, of Long Island, A joint federate 
council at present exists in several States, I think, j 
We, in the State of New York, I know, have a fed- I 
erate council. I do not see the necessity of this. 

The PRESIDENT. The matter goes on the Cal- | 
endar, giving rise to discussion. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. | 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The House of i 
Bishops sent down a message (No. 50) yesterday,^ \ 
non-concurring in the Canon i oi-^the organization of i 
the House, which this House adopted a few days j 
ago. I am informed credibly that they acted under ] 
some misapprehension with regard to the effect of 
that Canon, and that it can be easily adjusted if a 
Committee of Conference be appointed. I there- 
fore now move that we insist on our action in that 
matter, and request the appointment of a Committee 
of Conference wirh the House of Bishops. 

The motion vv'as agreed to. 

The PRESIDEN'i', Instead of the Committee on 
Canons, which is too large, the Chair appoints the 
Subcommittee that had the matter under considera- j 
tion, viz. : Rev. Dr. Andrews, of Vii^ginia ; Mr. 
Burgwin, of Pittsburgh, and Mr. Otis, of Illinois. 

ABANDONMENT OF COMMUNION. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia, submitted the fol- 
lowing report, v/hich was placed on the Calendar : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
Message No. 29, from the House of Bishops, propo- 
sing an amended Canon of the Abandonment of the 
Communion of the Church by a Bishop, respectfully 
report that they have considered the same, and re- i 
commend that the House concur in the proposed j 
Canon with amendments, as expressed m the follow- j 
ing resolution : j 
" Resolved, That this House concur with the House j 
of Bishops in their proposed amendment to Canon | 
8, Title II., with the following amendment >: ; 

"1. Insert after the word 'Church,' in th 3 fourth | 
line of the amended Canon, these words, " either by i 
an open l enunciation of the doctrine, discipline, or I 
worship of the Church, or by a formal admission | 
into any religious body not in Communion with tlie j 
same, or otherwise. ' i 
' ' 2. In the thirteenth line of the same, strike out j 
'shall ' and insert 'may.' j 
" 3. Insert after the word 'deposition,' at the end i 
of the first clause of said amended Canon, these i 
words, ' And in case the Bishop so abandoning the 
Communion of the Church be the Presiding Elder, 
the Bishop next in order of seniority shall be 
deemed to be, and shaU act as, the Presiduig Bishop 
under this Canoii.' ; 

"4. After the word ' false, ' in the second clause, i 
insert these words, ' and shall demand a trial. ' j 
Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia, submitted the | 
following report, which wa,s placed on the Calendar: 

" The Committee on Canons have had under con- , 
sideration Message No. 39 of the House of Bishops, ; 
proposing an amendment of Section 1, Canon 6, 
Title II. , ' 01 the Abandonment of the Communion of 
this Church by a Presbyter or Deacon,' and recom- 
mend the adoption of the following resolution : , 

* Resolved, That the House of Deputies concur with 
the House of Bishops in the proposed am^endment of | 
Section 1, Canon 6, Title il., with the following i 
amendment : 

" Strike out the word 'and ' after the word disci- : 
pline in the fifth line, and insert the word ' or. ' " I 



ORDER OF DEACONESES. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia, submitted thefollov/- 
ing report, which was placed on the Calendar : 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
the Canon reported by the Joint Committee ap- 
pointed at the last General Convention, respectfully 
report that they are unable to recommend the passage 
of said Canon as it has come to them, for the reason 
that it is not sufficiently explicit as to what is to be 
understood by the word 'Deaconess.' Throughout 
the proposed Canon the word Siste ^" is used as synon- 
ymous with ' Deaconess ' ; although, as it appears to 
this Committee there is a marked difference between 
the Order of Deaconesses,as described by earlj^ Chris- 
tian writers, a,nd the Associations of Christian women 
now existing under the name of Sisterhoods. While 
we fully appreciate the value and usefulness of the 
service rendered by these Sisterhoods, we are not 
prepared to make them identical with an order of 
Ministers which undoubtedly existed in the Primitive 
Church, but regarding whose official position there- 
in we have so little certain Imowledge. The Com- 
mittee therefore do not deem it expedient to legis- 
late at present upon the subject of the Order of Dea- 
conesses ; and they prefer to leave the subject of 
the Sisterhoods to such action as each Diocese may 
judge wise and proper for itself. 

" They therefore recommend the adoption of the 
following resolution: 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be dis- 
charged from the consideration of the proposed 
' Canon of Deaconesses or Sisters.' " 

EUCHARISTIC ADORATION. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. I beg the 
fa,vor of the House to offer a substitute for the 
resolution, now No. 1 on the Calendar, offered by 
me, and that this substitute go on the Calendar in- 
stead of that : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the following are hereby solemnly declared to 
be foreign to this Church, to wit : 

"1. Such rites, ceremonies, and usages of Euchar- 
istic Adoration as proceed from the belief that our 
Lord is present upon the Holy Table, as the appoint- 
ed place of His presence, in and under the forms of 
the bread and wine, by virtue of the consecration 
of the elements, and is there to be worshipped, and 
that He is offered by the priest as a propitia- 
tory sacrifice for the living and the dead. 

" 2, All teachmgs leading to the rites, ceremonies, 
and usages aforesaid." 

I offer this as a substitute for my resolution, nov/ 
No. 1 on the Calendar, and I ask that it be placed on 
the Calendar instead of that. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not think you can do 
that. You can offer that as an amendment when 
the resolution comes up on the Calendar in its or- 
der. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. Will it be in 
order to ask to withdraw the original resolution '. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not think it is in order 
to do anything with a matter on the Calendar until 
it comes up. 

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky. I think all these 
amendments and substitutes were laid on the table 
before we voted on the Canon reported by the Com- 
mittee on Canons. 

The PRESIDENT. There is nothing now before 
the House. 

FUNERAL SERVICES. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. Feehng 
the difficulty myself, and in the interest of others 
and by their request, I should Hke the consent of 
the House to the introduction of this resolution. 

"Resolved, That the House of Bishops be respect- 
fully rec|uested to inform this House what course 



251 



call in their judgment be lawfully and properly 
taken by a minister of this Church when called upoii 
to officiate at the funeral of a person who has died 
under circumstances in which the order for the 
burial of the dead is prohibited to be used." 

The PRESIDENT. " The resolution will be read 
bv the Secretarv. 

Rev. Dr. PARET. of Central Pennsylvania. I im- 
dersuood the other day that the point was taken and 
sustained, that until consent was given to suspend 
the rules it was not allowed to bring a resolution 
even before the House by reading. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not recollect that that 
point was sustained. The resolution is merely read 
to know for what purpose leave is asked. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
make the point now, and ask a decision that, until 
consent is given to bring a matter before the House, 
it is not permissible even to read the document. 

The PRESIDENT. I decide against the point of 
order. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carohna. How 
can the House know what the resolution is until it is 
read ^ 

The resolution was read by the Secretary. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that Rule No, 16 
be suspended in order to allow the introduction of 
the resolution just read. 

The motion was not agreed to, two-thirds not vot- 
ing therefor. 

CANON ON RITUAL. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I rise, Mr. 
President, not to make a motion, but, if it be in 
order, to make a request that I may be allowed to 
record my vote in favor of the Canon determined 
yesterday. In support of that Canon as a temporary 
expedient important in itself, I was allowed to ad- 
dress the House at an early moment because un- 
avoidable duty called me from the city ; and as I 
was necessarily absent yesterday, I should esteem it 
a privilege to put myself on the record as voting in 
the affirmative. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I move 
that the permission be granted. 

The PRESIDENT. If there be no objection the 
Secretary will take it for granted that If^ave is 
given, and Dr. Leeds or any other gentleman can 
record his name on the passage of the Ritual Canon 
voted on yesterday. 

THE PRESIDING BISHOP. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I submit the 
following report : 

" The Joint Committee, to whom was referred the 
subject of making proper provision for the present 
senior and Presiding Bishop, beg leave to report that 
they have duly considered the matter committed to 
them, and would respectfully submit that they pro- 
pose meeting the exigency in part by unofficial ac- 
tion, which it is not necessary to report to this House, 
and in part by the proposition which is hereb3^ 
presented in the form of the following resolution, 
viz. : 

" Resolved " — 

I have put it here (the House of Bishops concur- 
ring), as a matter of courtesy, because it is a Joint 
Committee, although it is mainly for the considera- 
tion of this HoLise. 

— "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the Committee on Expenses be instructed to 
report an appropriation of $500 per annum, in ad- 
dition to the amount usually appropriated, for the 
expenses incurred by the present Senior Bishop in 
the discharge of the duties devolving upon him." 

I only say, Mr. President, that this is a very deli- 
cate subject. The matter has been laid before the 
Committee, and they are unanimous in their action, 
and have instructed me very warmly to present this 



report to the House and ask the immediate adoption 
of the resolution. The unofficial method that is pro- 
posed conjointly with this, I need not here explain. 
It will be brought privately to the attention of the 
lay members of the House in the course of the next 
twenty -four hours. A gentleman in this city has 
kindly consented to take charge of that part of the 
effort ; and we only now ask the House to vote, in 
view of the great age and infirmities and other ne- 
cessities, to which I trust I may not be called upon 
to advert, to make this appropriation of $500, in ad- 
dition to the amount usually appropriated. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. Is it pro- 
posed to refer the resolution to the Committee on 
Expenses ? 

The PRESIDENT. No ; it is an instruction to the 
Committee. It is not referred to their discretion. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. That matter 
came before the Committee on Expenses, whether 
we could properly give a larger allowance than we 
did give, and we decided that it was not proper to 
do it. If anything is to be done in the way of 
evincing good feeling or charitj^, it is another thing ; 
but it is not well for this House to give more for the 
value of any service than what was agreed on, con- 
sidering that it forms a precedent. We do not think 
it right for the House to enter into any considera- 
tion which is a matter of charity or something of 
that kind. We thought the services of the Presiding 
Bishop were amply paid by the allowance which 
was made. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of Nev^ Jersey. I ask 
that the resolution go on the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be placed 
on the Calendar. 

ENGLISH CHURCH CONGRESS. 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
I rise rather to a. question of privilege. I hold in my 
hand a communication addressed to a Presbyter of 
this Church, the Rev. Dr. La.mson, by the venerable 
Archdeacon and Canon of Ely, Perpetual Secretary 
of the English Church Congress. Dr. Lamson de- 
sires that this communication should be read to the 
House, and also that I should present to the House a 
volume which the Archdeacon desires we should re- 
ceive, as an expression of the kindly feelings of the 
members of that Congress. 

The PRESIDENT. Please send the letter to the 
Secretary to be read. 

The SECRETARY read as follows : 

"October 9th, 18T4. 

"My DEAR Sir— The next Church Congress is to 
be held at Stoke-upon-Trent, the Lord Bishop of 
Lichfield halving consented to act as President. A 
telegraphic message will be sent to the Bishop in 
the name of the Church Congress, requesting him 
to invite as many of his Episcopal brethren as pos- « 
sible of the General Convention, to encourage us 
by their presence and help at Stoke, in October, 
1875, as many of them did at the Wolverhampton 
Church Congress some years ago. As you are now 
going to America, and may see the President of 
the Convention, or their Secretary, might I ask 
you kindly to help forward our desires, and ex- 
press in my own behalf the extreme gratification 
which all the Churchmen of England will feel at 
such loving co-operation ? 

" Believe me to remain yours very faithfully, 
"WILLIAM EMERY, 

' ' Archdeacon and Canon of Ely, Permanent Sec- 
retary Church Congress. 
"Rev. Wm. O. Lamson." 

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. 
I would say in explanation that the Archdeacon, 
while he addressed his communication to Mr. Lam- 
son, intended it for this House, and the volume 
which I have now to present is also addressed 



252 



to this House. Inasmuch as the Lord Bishop 
of Lichfield would bring the matter before the 
House of Bishops, it was felt to be unnecessary that 
he should address them. Mr. Lamson design?, there- 
fore, to bring the matter beforer this House, and to 
ask the acknowledgment of this volume, and also 
that the communication be read. In view of the 
communication and the presentation of this volume, 
entitled " Report of the Church Congress at Bath, 
1873," I beg leave to offer the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That a communication be addressed 
to the Venerable Archdeacon and Canon of Ely, by 
the President and Secretary of this House, acknowl- 
edging their grateful receipt of the volume he has 
given to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
and assuring him that this House cordially recipro- 
cate the kind and fraternal feelings expressed in 
his communication." 

The resolution was agreed to unanimously. 

PAROCHIAL TEACHING. 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia, from the Com- 
mittee on Canons, submitted the following report : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was re- 
ferred Message No. 27, from the House of Bishops, 
proposing an additional section to Canon 19 of Ti- 
tle I., ' Of Parochial Instruction, ' respectfully report 
that they have considered the same, and recommend 
the adoption of the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That this House concur with the House 
of Bishops in the adoption of an additional section 
to be added to Canon 19, Title I., as proposed by the 
House of Bishops in their Message No. 27, with the 
amendment that the said section shall read as follows : 

" Sec. 2. Ministers shall also be dihgent in teach- 
ing the people committed to their charge according 
to the doctrine of Christ ; observing and inculcating 
Christian holiness of life ; rebuking gaming, intem- 
perance, licentious theatrical amusements, and all 
amusements involving cruelty to the brute creation ; 
reproving all ungodliness, covetousness, and world- 
liness ; exhorting to the maintenance of family wor- 
ship and the due observance of the Lord's Day ; and 
calling upon parents and sponsors to train their 
children and godchildren, both by precept and ex- 
ample, faithfully to observe their "Baptismal vows. " 

The resolution was placed on the Calendar. 

CANON ON RITUAL. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I am requested to 
ask permission of the House, on behalf of Rev. Dr. 
Spalding, who is now upon the floor, to make an 
explanation personal to himself as a matter of privi- 
lege. I suppose there will be no objection to the 
gentleman making a personal explanation, but he 
felt some diffidence about it, and I bring the matter 
thus formally to the attention of the House. 

The PRESIDENT. It is not necessary to make 
any motion. Dr. Spalding rises to a personal ex- 
planation. 

Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. I am 
very much obliged to the House for allowing me to 
make an explanation. I wanted to explain my vote 
yesterday, briefly, upon the Canon on Ritual, be- 
cause, I think, it will occur to every one in the 
House what sort of construction may be given to 
our vobes on such questions as that. I wanted to 
state that I was in favor of a Canon on that sub- 
ject, and I should have voted "aye " on any of the 
amendments that I heard or read that were offered 
at that time, and I hoped I would get a chance to 
vote on them, and then, even if they had been voted 
down, my position would have been clear to this 
House and to the General Church on that subject. 
The reason for my voting as I did was a matter of 
pure conscientiousness to myself. I had some objec- 
tions to the Canon as it stood, that I tried 
very hard to state, not to make a speech, 



j but simply to state my objections, and to 
I say to the House that I should certainly vote 
against that Canon if it came to a vote. Several of 
the speakers stated portions of my objections. One 
I objection I had to the Canon was that it seemed to 
I me to be class legislation ; and having been some 
I years a Chaplain to a Legislature, I had noticed that 
there was a great deal of obnoxiousness attached to 
I that kind of legislation, for it legislates only for one 
extreme. That was my personal opinion ; and that 
! being so, I voted as I did, for I thought false doc- 
trine might just as well be taught by defect as by 
excess. 

Another objection I had was that I recognized 
the right of the Church- 
Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Is not this de- 
bate on a Canon which has been disposed of ^ 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. If every gentleman 
gets up and explains, we shall never get through. 

The PRESIDENT. I think the matter of per- 
sonal privilege has been fully accorded. 

Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. I do not 
want to argue it ; but I want to state— [" Order !"] 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I do not think it is a 
question of personal privilege. 

The PRESIDENT. Clearly not. 

Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. Then I 
want to state that I was in favor of a Canon on 
Ritual, and my objections to that one were purely 
conscientious— ["Order." "Order."] 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. As Dr. Spal- 
ding has made his explanation, I want, not to speak 
on that, but to sa y to this House one thing. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I object to Dr. 
Adams going on. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I am going on 
in regular — 

The PRESIDENT. Have you a motion to offer, 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I have one to 
offer. 

The PRESIDENT. Very well ; let us hear it. 

PAROCHIAL TEACHING. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I want to say 
to this House that the resolution which has been 
brought before us by the Committee on Canons, I 
think, should be passed now, and should not go on 
the Calendar; and the reason I would say is, because 
hitherto the blame has been to this House that in- 
stead of legislating with regard to Christian moral- 
ity and Christian interests, as the ancient Church 
did, we have been legislating simply upon matters 
that are of no importance, mere matters of regula- 
tion with regard to the motions of clergy and laity. 
["Order," "Order."] 

The PRESIDENT. You are out of order. The 
matter has passed from the House. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I understand 
that it was not passed. 

The PRESIDENT. It has gone upon the Calen- 
der without any vote, but it will come again, and 
you will have aii opportunity to be heard on it very 
soon, I hope. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I have been 
told by a gentleman — 

The PRESIDENT. But the gentleman does not 
understand it. (Laughter.) 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. For the benefit of 
the gentleman, I move to reconsider the vote put- 
ting it on the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT. There is no vote. The thing 
has passed to the Calendar under the rule. L,et us 
go on with the regular business. 

PROVINCIAL SYSTEM. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I have a re- 
port from the Committee on Constitutional Amend- 
ments, which I desire to submit 



253 



The report was read by the Secretary, as follows: 
"The Committee on Amendments of the Constitu- 
tion, to whom were referred Memorials and other 
papers presenting the question of the expediency 
of devising a 'Provincial System for the Church,' 
having had the same under consideration, respect- 
full}^ report: 

" I . "V our Committee assume that the terms ' Pro- 
vincial s^-ete]n ' are used in the resolution in their 
full ecclesiastical and primitive sense. In the early 
Church there were : 1, the Parish ; 3, the Diocese ; 
o, the Province ; 4, the Patriarchate. The Parish 
had its Priest, the Diocese its Bishop, the Province 
its Archbishop, the Patriarchate its Patriarch. 
Among these, the dominant and mosfc active power 
was the Province with its Archbishop. Speaking 
generally, we may say that it possessed the powers 
of this body and of the House of Bishops, and many 
of the powers of our Diocesan Councils. The Pro- 
vinces were disconnected and independent, except 
as, by very slender ties, they were united in the 
Patriarchate. Such a system would dismem- 
ber this Church, and out of this now 
compact, now united body, create five, or 
seven, or ten separate Churches. The ties which may 
at fii'st unite them will grow weaker and weaker. 
However similar they may be at the moment of 
dismemberment, at that moment the process of di- 
vergence will begin, and it will go on until the 
separation will be as great as that now existing be- 
tween York and Canterbury. Those Provinces 
now communicate with each other only informally. 
At the prehminary and very important Lambeth 
Conference, the Bishops of York did not attend, 
because it was convened by the Archbishop of Can- 
tei-bury. If the words ' Province ' and ' Provincial 
sj^stem ' mean a.nything, they mean all this. 

" If these terms, as used in the resolution, do not 
have as broad a signification as that given them 
above, it is respectfully submitted that they ought 
not to be used. Having a well-defined signification 
in the nomenclature of church polity, their use in 
another sense must create confusion and misconcep- 
tion. 

"3. The unity and unexampled prosperity now en- 
joyed by the Church is mainly to be attributed, 
under Divine Providence, to its" simple but efiicient 
organization under one supreme Authority in the 
General Convention, restrained only by the Ecclesi- 
astical Constitution established by the piety and 
forecast of our fathers. 

"3. No fundamental change should be in that 
organization without the clearest evidence of urgent 
necessity, and then only in the Constitutional mode, 
by carefully prepared Amendments to the Consti- 
tution, proposed and passed by the General Conven- 
tion, to be submitted to the clergy and laity in each 
of Ihe Dioceses for their due consideration, before 
its second passage in the next General Convention. 

" 4. In framing or enlarging the organization of 
the Apostohc Church in the United States of 
America, as one great Province of the Church 
Catholic, there was not, nor is there now, any Scrip- 
tural or other necessity for adopting or following 
any example of local organization in any other 
country or age. The Church, in any of the nations 
of Christendom, is fully and plainly at liberty at all 
times to conform its local organization to its local 
conditions and necessities. 

" 5. No evidence has yet been fm^nished by experi- 
ence of any action or "want of action by the General 
Convention of the Church in the United States, 
which requires any large surrender or delegation of 
its powers to provinces, or groups of Dioceses, 
representing only separate portions of the Church. 

"6. Any such surrender, practically esta.blishing 
independent Churches, must eventually and inevi- 
tably operate to undermine and overthrow the par- 



amomit authority of the General Convention, vital- 
ly necessarv for preserving the unity of the Church. 

"7. In view of the continental extent of the 
Church, already reaching from the Atlantic to the 
Pacific, and requiring personal supervision of its 
widespread subdivisions, the present House of Bish- 
ops is not too rumei'ous, but may be gradually and 
wisely increased in number, to keep pace with the 
growth of the Church. 

" 8. If the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies should 
hereafter become too numerous for convenient and 
efiicient action, the evil may be promptly remedied 
without any fundamental change in the character of 
our ecclesiastical structure, by constitutional 
amendments from time to time reducing the number 
of Deputies from each of the Dioceses, whenever 
rendered necessarv by their increase in number. 

"9. No interm.ediate provinces are needed for exer- 
cising any powers already possessed by the Dio- 
cesan Conventions, while any other powers granted 
to provinces must necessarily be subtracted from 
the General Convention, which would be thereby 
enfeebled to the same extent. 

"10. Anv institution of provinces, or Provmcial 
Synods, with powers subject at all times to revocation 
by the General Convention, would be useless and 
illusory. The Provinces, if invested with irrevo- 
cable powers, and discharged from the constant and 
necessary authority and supervision of the General 
Convention, certainly might, and probably would, 
soon diverge into widelv diirering practices and 
opinions, engendering ecclesiastical conflicts, threat- 
ening the unity of our Church. 

" 11. Apart from these fearful consequences in the 
future, reaching far down the coming ages, the se- 
paration of our Church into geographical and sec- 
tional provinr-es would work immediate injury, 
in discontinuing or rendering less frequent the 
General Conventions (now triennal) of the Bishops, 
and the representatives of the clergy and laity, 
in which fraternal assemblies, the efforts of all to 
advance the highest interests of the Church, and 
especially its widespread missionary labors, are en- 
couraged and invigorated, thereby more closely 
uniting our now undivided Church in a perpetual 
[ bond of Christian sympathy and affection. 

" Fullv impressed with the convictions now ex- 
! pressed, "^the Committee recommend the passage of 
j the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That, in the judgment of the House 
I of Clerical and Lav Deputies, it is not expedient to 
i establish a Provincial system for this Church. 

" CHAS. H. HALL, Chairman. 
J. A. DUDLEY, Jr., 
SAMUEL B. RUGGLES, 
J. Vv^. STEVENSON, 
GEO. F. COMSTOCK, 
W. F. BULLOCK, 
G. W. RACE, 
E. T. WILDER, 
\ EDMUND H. BENNETT, 

j ISAAC HAZLEHURST." 

■ Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move that 
the order of the day for to-morrow, at twelve 
o'clock, be all the reports relating to amendments 
i to the Constitution, that they may be taken up and 
1 disposed of. 

I Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. Was it not 
the order of the House that the question of the 
Hymnal be taken up immediately after the matter 
: which was disposed of yesterday, and then immedi- 
i ately after that the report on the baptismal office 
\ Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I will modify 
my motion by saying that the reports of the Com- 
: mitt.ee on Amendments to the Constitution be taken 
: up and disposed of after existing orders. 
I The PRESIDENT. It is moved that after dispos- 
i ing of the existing special orders the various re- 



254 



ports of the Committee on Constitutional Amend- 
ments be taken up and considered until disposed of. 
The motion was agreed to. 

MISSIONARY BISHOPS FOR TEXAS. 

A message (No. 53) from the House of Bishops an- 
noimced the adoption by that House of the following 
resolution : 

"Resolved, That the House does hereby consti- 
tute the counties of Cass, Titus, Upshur, Wood, 
Ra.ins, Vantandz, Henderson, Navarro, Hill, Basque, 
Hamilton, Brown, Coleman, and Runnels, together 
with all the counties lying north and northwesterly 
thereof in the State of Texas, and also all the terri- 
tory north of the county of Tom Green, in said State, 
a Missionary District, to be known a,s the Missionary 
District of Northern Texas ; also the counties of 
Oalhoun, Jackson, Lewaca, Gonzales, Caldwell, 
Ha.yes, Bianco, Llano, San Saba, McCulloch, 
Concho, Tom Green, Pecos, and El Paso, to- 
gether with all the counties and territory in said 
State south and southwesterly thereof, into a Mis- 
sionary District of Western Texas. 

"And the House of Bishops further informs the 
House of Deputies that it has nominated as Mission- 
ary Bishop of Northern Texas the Rev. Alexander 
Charles Garrett, D.D., of the Diocese of Nebraska, 
Dean of Trinity Cathedral, Nebraska ; and as Mis- 
sionary Bishop of Western Texas, the Rev. Robert 
W, B. Elliott, of the Diocese of Georgia, Rector of 
St. Philip's Church, Atlanta, in said Diocese." 

MISSIONARY BISHOP FOR CALIFORNIA. 

A message (No. 53) from the House of Bishops, an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

" Resolved, That tliis House does hereby consti- 
tute the counties of Sonoma, Napa, Solano, 
Sacramento, Amador and El Dorado, together with 
all counties lying north thereof in the State of Cali- 
fornia, a Missionary District, to be known as the 
Missionary District of Northern California. 

"And the House of Bishops further informs the 
House of Deputies that it has nominated as Mission- 
ary Bishop of Northern California, the Rev. John 
H. D. Wingfield, d.d., Rector of St. Paul's Church, 
Petersburgh, Virginia. " 

THE HYMNAL. 

Mr. SHEFPEY, of Virginia. I caU for the Cal- 
endar. 

The PRESIDENT. The Hymnal was appointed 
to come up immediately after the matter which was 
yesterday disposed of. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. I 
call for the older of the day, and would like to offer 
a resolution. 

The PRESIDENT. The Hymnal is the special 
order. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachustets. Yes, 
sir, and I oifer this resolution in regard to it. 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. Is the 
Hvmnal in order now ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir, it is called for, and 
I suppose the House had better be informed as to the 
precise form in which it comes before us. Dr. 
Huntington has risen to oifer a resolution in refer- 
ence to it. The Committee on the Hymnal submit 
a report without a resolution, and there is a message 
from the House of Bishops on the same subject. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. May I 
ask the Secretary distinctly to state in what form 
the order of the day is now before us? 

The SECRETARY. The report of the Committee 
on the Hymnal, with the request of the Committee 
to be discharged. Then there is a message from the 
House of Bishops which is to be taken from its place 



on the Calendar, if it be so desired, and considered 
with this. It has not been so ordered yet. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. I 
move, then, that the message of the House of Bishops 
be taken from the Calendar and considered in this 
connection, and I will oifer my resolution as an 
amendment to their message. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to take the mes- 
sage of the House of Bishops on the Hymnal from 
the Calendar, and consider that in connection with 
this order of the day. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I have the floor, 
and decline to- allow any resolution to be offered 
until I present my own. I took the floor yesterday, 
and gave way for an adjournment, supposing that I 
would have the floor when it came up to-day. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. First let us hear 
the resolution of the House of Bishops. 

The SECRETARY. Message No. 32, from the 
House of Bishops, announced the passage by that 
House of the following resolutions: 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That future editions of the Hymnal shall be printed 
so as to conform to the revised edition presented by 
the Joint Committee on the Hymnal, and that no 
other hymns be allow^ed in the public worship of the 
Church except the Hymnal as thus revised, a.nd 
such hymns and psalms as are now ordinarily bomid 
up with the Book of Common Pi^ayer, provided 
that any congregation may continue to use the edi- 
tions of the Hymnal heretofore published, until far- 
ther action of the Convention. 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring). 
That the Joint Committee on the Hjannal, in pursu- 
ance of their own request, be discharged. 

"The House of Bishops informs the House of Depu- 
ties that it has also adopted the f oUov/ing resolution : 

"Resolved, That the House of Bishops desires 
here to place upon record their sense of the singular 
zeal and assiduity of the Joint Committee in the la- 
borious task confided to them for tne sound discre- 
tion which they have exhibited, and of their patience 
and kindness in considering objections, and in en- 
deavoring to meet the wishes of the Church, and 
that a copy of this resolution be communica,ted to 
the House of Deputies." 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Mr. President- 
Mr. STARK, of Connecticut. Will the gentle- 
man from Long Island give way to allow a motion 
to be made in relation to debate on this matter ^ I 
wish to move to limit the time of speakers in this 
debate to fifteen minutes. 

Rev. Dr. HxlLL, of Long Island. I will give way 
for that. 

Mr. STARK, of Connecticut. I move that the 
speeches in the debate on the matter now before the 
House be limited to fifteen minutes. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I would 
amend by saving "ten minutes." 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend- 
ment of the Deputy from Wisconsin. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the mo- 
tion as amended, to limit the speeches in this debate 
to ten minutes by each speaker. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The business 
before the House is the report of the Hymnal Com- 
mittee, asking to be discharged ; with that the reso- 
lution of the House of Bishops as read by the Secre- 
tary. After that I shall propose the following reso- 
lutions : 

" Resolved, That this House concur in Message 
No. 32 of the House of Bishops. 

"Resolved, also. That it is the sense of this Con- 
vention that the revised Hymnal now set forth is 
not regarded as a finaUty, but that it is authorized 



255 



for the time being, as a tentative process toward 
a more perfect and acceptable Hymnal for the 
Church." 

The question, as I suppose it to be put to us now, 
is whether we shall go into an interminable critical 
discussion of the Hymnal, or whether we shall eon- 
done the past three years and drop it out, and take 
these two books and do the besfc we can with them 
for a short time to come. It is understood that the 
House of Bishops propose that this matter shall run 
along for at least nine years. They cannot bind us, 
and we camiot bind the nest G-eneral Convention. 
All we have to do, I imagine, is to take the two 
Hymnals precisely as they stand. But, unfortu- 
nately, the iirst thing I have to do is to apologize. 
The binder, at leSist in some instances, has managed 
to get into many of the copies here two sets of 
hymns — in some cases some from the old edition, and 
also some from the new that should be substituted 
by the iise of the old plates. We shall have to un- 
ravel them in the best way we can. 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. Do I under- 
stand Dr. Hall to say tha,t only in a few coioies of the 
Hymnal, as first issued, the binder failed to put in 
the sheet of corrections, and that all hereafter to 
be printed will be found correct ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. All will be 
found cori'ect. It was a mistake of the binder in 
binding the revised Hymnal. Some of you, probably, 
can see that the plates have been got in wrong, 
and things a little mixed in consequence of this dif- 
ficulty ; but with a little care, probably, the correc- 
tion can be made. 

Again, it is known to the Convention that there 
were certain matters happening three years ago in 
regard to the getting out of the edition whereby it 
appears from the remarkable labor and the very 
worthy labor c>f our good brother from Georgia, as 
he first thought, there were two thousand mistakes — 

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia. I corrected that 
af tervv' ards,_aud reduced them to fliteen hundred. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I was going to 
say twenty-five per cent, would be taken oif . Fif- 
teen hundred is a heavy load ; but many are merely 
the changes of numbers, and a great many are 
changes of commas and things of that kind. 

The sheet of "corrections" in the first edition 
(which is in the hands of members) shows the 
changes in the new edition : they show its accuracy, 
and they are not offered, as I understand, simply in 
the light of being faults, but as mistakes that were 
made then. I am going to say grant all this, grant 
that these mistakes were made between the first 
edition and the second, the question v/ould then 
arise what jjowers the Committee supposed them- 
selves to have. It seems that it was stated by Dr. 
Howe in this House : 

" The Comroittee will ask to be continued until the 
new General Convention, and then I submit that if 
their request to be continued should be granted, and 
this Hjannal should in any sense be adopted, mem- 
bers of this House and any other members of the 
Church who have any suggestions to make touching 
the Hymnal shall communicate them in wilting to 
any member of this Committee, they will have 
due consideration. They will ask to be continued 
for the purpose of typographical, verbal, and other 
emendation. " 

That seems to have been the understanding in 
this House, and I am informed was decidedly the 
understanding in the other House why the Com- 
mittee should be continued. 

I am going to grant that they stretched their 
powers ; I am going to grant that they made a, mis- 
take; I am going to grant that there was some dif- 
ference of opinion between them and the very 
learned gentleman on hymnology, who made the 
final corrections. Supposing it ought to be so. "what 



I are you going to do about it ?" as was once asked by a 
distinguished gentleman who is spending his time 
in the suburbs of this city. [Laughter.] We have 
punished these men already; they have been taken, 
; 0.nd by the strong arm have been made Bishops and 
\ sent wandering around Dioceses. [Laughter.] We 
I ought not to reflect on them furtlier. They have 
done a great deal of labor for which they have not 
been thanked ; they have taken up a work that I 
do believe Bishop White was wise in forecasting 
: forty or fifty years ago would be very disastrous 
' whenever it came up in this Convention, and that 
is, undertaking to criticise a Hymnal in a 
; public body. If we grant all these facts, if we see 
evidently that what has passed is to be condoned 
and passed over, it seems to me that the plain, 
square issue is simply this : Shall we take a revised 
Hymnal that has now had the benefit of valuable 
i suggestions from various pai'ts of the country, or 
i shall v/e have none ? W e have had a valuable paper- 
from Pennsylvania; we view this as a contributaon 
i towards a future perfected Hymnal. We can cer- 
I tainly use this Hymnal as it now is, and we are 
bound not to change it more than is necessar3", 
I because we see that in the last few months the 
* funds of that charitable society to which the 
royalty on the Hymnal goes have been dimin- 
j ished by these criticisms. You have entered into 
1 engagements with publishers, so that twelve thou- 
I sand and more dollars have been gathered as the 
royalty on the very large amount that has been in- 
vested by these publishers. One of them said to 
me, " I have eight thousand dolla.rs in the Hymnal; 
I went into it, supposing that it was to be a matter 
that was not to be thrown up certainly in three 
years." 

It seems to me, therefore, looking on every side 
of the case, that the pure and simple question is to 
accept the revised Hymnal as the Bishops proposed 
it to us ; to have the same royalty extended to it as 
: upon the other ; to allow the old copies to wear out, 
i and the plates, after being reformed, will give us 
I this revised Hymnal. 

The advantages of the revised Hymnal, I under- 
stand, are: 1, The general criticism that it has re- 
ceived. It has been under fire. It certainly has 
I been riddled from end to end by bullets and hot 
i shot of all kinds for the last year. Every kind of 
i objection has been urged against it that 
1 can be imagined, so that we know about 
j where we stand. I remind you that there 
is no such thing as a perfect Hymnal, 
! Tliei-e is no such thing as a perfect Hymnal in this 
j Church of all others. Why ? Because in this Church 
certain things are to be tolerated, as it is agreed all 
I around, and compromised. There are hymns in the 
; book that I never use and do not want to use. I do 
; not want for example any a?aapaestic lines like 
! ' ' The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold, 
! His cohorts all gleaming with purple and gold, 
j [Laughter.] They may be very well for Sunday- 
I schools, but not for a hymn for my people. There 
j are hymns the doctrine' of which I do not quite like, 
i There are hyinns the taste of which I do not like ; but 
i there are many of these hymns that my people have 
I been using for three years^ with perfect satisfaction. 
I When I first came on the "Hynnis Ancient 
and Modern," and then came to this Hymnal, 
[ it seemed to me as if I had been kept 
' in a dark room in regard to hymnolosry 
by the Church for a very long time. There is suffi- 
cient in this Hymnal for us all to use and enjoy. 

The expense of changing the plates as now pro- 
posed will be less than $100. I mean for the ordin- 
ary copies, and not much more for the Hymnals 
v\^ith tunes. 

The Committee have presented to us now^ the finai 
digested action, criticised as largely as it has been, 



that iias approved itself to their wisdom. If 
the debate, then, may be confined to the 
main point, it seems to me that we may 
at last be able to get at a safe conclusion. I offer, 
then, this resolution, that we discharge the Com- 
mittee, and that we concur with the message of the 
House of Bishops, but that it is the sense of this 
House that the revised Hymnal now set forth is not 
regarded as a finality, but that it is authorized for 
the time being as a tentative process and contribu- 
tion toward a more perfect and acceptable Hymnal 
of the future. 

Then I think it will be proper that a resolution 
by Mr. Pierrepont should be appended, taking care 
of the royalty which has been carefully prepared, 
and then it seems to me we may go to some other 
business. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I wish to 
ask a question. Am I to understand that the words 
jast stated by the member from Long Island are to 
be incorporated in this resolution ? Are they a part 
of this resolution ? Are these limitations to come 
at the end of the resolution of the House of 
Bishops ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I am asked 
whether I offer this resolution as a part of the vote 
of the whole question. I do. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. Mr. 
President, as the resolution I have to offer is in di- 
rect conflict with the principle of the resolution of- 
ferred by the Deputy from Long Island, I am obliged 
reluctantly to propose it as a substitute. The object 
of my resolution is to call attention to an oversight 
in the report of the Committee as coming from the 
House of Bishops. Before doing so, however, and 
in order that we may have the whole subject intelli- 
gently before us, I would call up from the Calendar, 
with the permission of the House, the message of the 
House of Bishops relating to Church music. We 
shall then have the whole subject before us. 

The SECRETARY. That is not on the Calendar, 
but before the Committee on Canons. It can be 
read, however. ["Read."] Message No. 23 from 
the House of Bishops announced the adoption by 
that House of the following resolution : 

" Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), that the following Canon be adopt- 
ed: 

" Of Church Music. 

"It shall be the duty of every minister of this 
Church, with such assistance as he can obtain from 
persons skilled in music, to give order concerning 
the tunes to be sung at any time m his Church ; and, 
especially, it shall be his duty to suppress all light 
and unseemly music, and all indecency and irrever- 
ence in the performance, by which vain and un- 
godly persons profane the service of the sanctuary. 

"And, further, that tlys Canon be numbered 
Canon 21, of Title I., and that the present Canon be 
numbered Canon 22. 

"Resolved, (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), That this Canon be printed in 
place of the resolution on the same subject hereto- 
fore prefixed to the Psalms in Metre and the Hym- 
nal." 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. The 
resolutions I have to offer will test the mind of 
this Convention as to whether it is our wish that 
this Hymnal should be, so far as we have it in 
our power to make it so, a permanency, and 
in speaking in behalf of making it a per- 
manency, I know that while I shall be opposed 
by Deputies who have come here with special theo- 
ries of Hymnology to carry through, I shall have 
the grateful support, if not of this Convention, I am 
sure of the large body of the worshippers of this 
Church throughout the land. 

I would call attention to the fact, which I said 



I had been overlooked, that the third page of the 
Hymnal, as revised and reported to us, is obsolete, 

I and that we shall be guilty of a solecism if we pass 
it without amendment, because it is all future in its 
language, and deals with contingencies, and, more- 
over, states that this Hymnal shall not be bound up 
with the Book of Common Prayer until order to 
that effect shall be taken by the General Conven- 
tion, a resolution which has stood in the way of the 

j conveniejice, not only of publishers, but of worship- 
pers, and wliich, I am sure, we all want to get out of 

! the way. 

[ I would also, before I read my resolutions, f ore- 
I warn you against supposing that they in any way con- 
, flict with the copyright privileges; on the contrary, 
they are intended more securely to guarantee those 
privileges, for the point has been raised by a pub- 
lisher in my hearing — a point not well taken, I 
think, but still one that may be i-aised — that our 
copyright is invalidated by this revision. That is a 
pomt which I have submitted to a lawyer, and on 
which I have received from him an adverse deci- 
sion. Nevertheless it will be well thus to go.ard 
against any such question, if we can. These ai-e my 
resolutions: 

" Ptesolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
j That in place of the certificate and decision printed 
on the third page of the revised edition of the 
Hymnal, the following authentication, duly certified 
by the proper officers, be substituted, viz. : 
I " By the Bishops, the clergy, and the laity of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
1 of America in General Convention^ in the year of 
our Lord 1870, this revised Hymnal is set forth and 
allowed to be used in ail congregations of the said 
Church, and to be bound up with the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer. 

j "This Hymnal as nowre vised is free to be printed 
i and published by all responsible publishers, who 
shall obtain a license to that effect from the Ti-ustees 
of the Fund for the relief of widows and orphans of 
destitute clergymen, and of aged, infirm, and dis- 
abled clergymen, and who shall assure to such 
Trustees a payment, to be applied to the uses of said 
fund, equivalent to ten per cent, upon the retail 
selling price; and that the copyright of the Hymnal 
shall vest in the said Trustees. 

"No hymns other than those contained in this 
Hymnal may lawfully be ased in the public wor- 
ship of this Church, save that it shall be lawful to 
use the Book of Psalms in Metre and hymns set 
forth in 1832, as well as the Hymnal set forth in 
j 1871, mitil action to the contrary shall be taken by 
the General Convention. 

" Foot Note. — That Anthems in the words of the 
Holy Scripture or of the Book of Common Prayer 
may at any time be used instead of Hymns. 

" Resolved, That to the sentence on the fourth 
page of the Revised Hynmal be appended the words, 
' From the joint resolution of the General Conven- 
tion of 1832.' " 

I state that because we have here now an entirely ' 
anonymous aimouncement in quotation marks on 
j the fourth page, with no reference whatever to the 
I source from which it comes. I also introduce the 
! point in regard to anthems, because it legaliizes 
and authorizes a usage which has obtained in this 
Church in compliance with a very old re- 
commendation of the House of Bishops, and 
because it meets also objections that may be raised 
] by unintelligent and misinformed persons in con- 
I gregations of this Church, who suppose that their 
I Rectors are taking undue liberties in introducing 
j anthems into the worship. The authority to which 
I I refer, kindly furnished me by the Histoiiographer 
of the Church, may be found in the first volume of 
Bioren's Journa,l, page 213. 

" It could not iDut give satisfaction to the Bishops 



25? 



to recollect that anthems taken from Scripture, 
and judiciously arranged, may, according to the 
known allowance of this Church, be sung in congre- 
gations at the discretion of their respective minis- 
tei-s." 

In place of this vague and only imperfectly re- 
membered suggestion, I offer a distinct resolution. 
I now ask that these resolutions of mine be read by 
the Secretary. 

The Secretary read the proposed resolutions. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. I 
offer this proposition as an amendment to the mo- 
tion foi' concurrence with the House of Bishops. 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. Mr. 
President and gentlemen of the Convention, I 
know so well the value of the remaining time that 
it was not necessary for such speakers as myself 
that the resolution, limiting debate to ten minutes, 
should have been passed. I rise to one point which 
is, I think, of great importance. It is this^ — either 
that the Committee should not be discharged, or 
that some conimittee should sit to make alterations 
which have escaped this Committee, and in some 
cases very many of those who have had this subject 
under special consideration. 

I am very glad to say my little say at the opening 
of this debate, for I know that the numbers of those 
who are opposed to the Hymnal is legion, and that 
this Convention will have a work of exorcism to do 
before we settle this question. 

The Hynmal is wanted. The Committee has 
done a great and laborious work, I had almost said 
a thankless work, in preparing this Hymnal. Sir, 
I like the Hymnal. I do not consider it a per- 
fect work, and it is not in the power either 
of this body, or of any Committee, or of 
any individual man to make a work on 
this subject that will pass reasonably through 
the hands of poets and critics at any time. 
1 do not propose to touch the question of the 
principle upon which hymus should be written. I 
do not propose to show 'my knowledge of St. Augus- 
tine and his views. I do propose to say, however, 
that in many cases that principle is one in seem- 
ing and not in reality. I me?ai to say 
that if a hymn should be always in the 
form of ascription of praise to God or of apos- 
trophe to Him, we siiould lose some of the very 
best hymns we have, some that are I was about to say 
almost essential to our public worship. One of the 
most distinguished Presbyters in this House said to 
me, " I hope nothing will be done to turn out such a 
hymn as 'Onward, Christian Soldiers,' for my 
children" — he spoke of his children in the Lord — 
"take the roof off the house when they sing it." 
[Laughter.] So it is with many others. Spec- 
ially the Committee of the Convention of the 
Diocese of Pennsylvania has noticed a hymn of 
Montgomery — " Prayer is the soul's sincere desire " 
— and that Committee does not consider the matter as 
relegated into a hymn of proper ascription and 
apostrophe by the closing stanzas, beginning "Oh, 
TJiou, by whom we come to God." 

Now it seems to me that very often it is only in 
the form that we have not tins ascription, that we 
have not this apostrophe. You have it there ; you 
have it eoncejitrated and made powerful and beau- 
tiful at the close ; ana yet such a hymn would be 
turned out on this theory. Let any great calamity 
come over this land, a s within the memory of those 
in this Convention there has been, let a solemn ser- 
vice be ordained in order ttiat we may express our 
feelings and vent our grief, and in nine cases out of 
ten the hymn is given out, 

" God moves in a mysterious way, 
His wonders to perform, " 



and yet that would be pronounced objection- 
able on this principle. 
But I do not propose to dwell upon this point. Al- 
j terations are proposed in hymns, and alterations 
[ have been made in many of the hymns in the 
I Hymnal which are assthetical, doctrine, or simply 
i lyrical. 

! I am willing to gi-ant that where an alteration is 
: simply sesthetical, not much harm might be done, 
though it seems to imply a necessity for change, f oi- 
i much of our best poetry is not infused with a lyric 
: spirit. It is where doctrine is touched, principally, 
j that I think we do great injustice to those who wrote 
I these hymns. 

j Sir, we talk about copyright ; we talk about an 
international copyright for all those who write in 
the English language. We know that if a man's 
, work is touched he goes to the law and the law im- 
[ mediately redresses the wrong. We know that i 

we quote' in any literary performance from authors 
\ old or new, let us take Homer, if you please, 
\ the scholar will mark any alteration that he makes 
I in brackets, so that it may be known 
' which was Homer's work and which is his. No one 
j would think of quoting Milton or Shakespeare in 
1 something which should be considered of high litera- 
ry character without taking that precaution. Now, 
i sir, the authors who have given us some of our 
j finest hymns are dead. They want not the money 
I that the copyright brings; but the fame — the holy 
! fame, if I may so speak. Sir, they are not only 
I dead, but they are immortal, and it is to preserve 
! the character of doctrine, the eesthetic power, and 
j the logical force of these men that I stand here. 
I I like the Hymnal. I want these alterations made 
j for the good of the Church. I should rather, there- 
1 fore, lay down the principle that no alteration shall 
j be made in the hymns of authors who have gone 

■ before us, than that there should be any alteration 
j in doctrine. If a hymn be erroneous in doctrine, as 
! some of the hynms of the Eastern Church may be 
I according to our standard ; as some of the mediaeval 
! Latin hymns are, let us put such aside, sorrowfully, 

if you please, that we cannot use the good, but let 
us put them aside reverently. 

I wish to call the attention of the Convention, by 
one illustration, to an alteration that has been made 
in a hymn, and I hope that this will sufficiently 
! strengthen the position that I have taken, that either 
i this Committee should not be discharged, or that 
i the work of carefully examining and revising the 
i subject for the further consideration of the next 
! Convention should be put into some hands. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. There is only 
; one member of the Committee on the part of this 
I House left ; the others have been made Bishops, 
i Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. I hope 
there are a number of clerical members here who 
I would not be averse to bemg put on the new com- 
mittee on that accoxmt. [Laughter.] If gentlemen 
will turn to the 265th hymn in the Revised Hymnal, 
they will see a set of alterations which I think will 
show something more than a design to alter — some- 
thing like perfunctory work on the part of the Com- 
: mittee. I have said that they have done hard work, 
and careful work, usually ; but here is a case in which 
they have failed to do the work well, and if there 
were no other illustrations to be given, it seems to 
me that this would be sufficient to keep this matter 
in the hands of a learned and critical committee. 
If the gentlemen of the Convention will merely 
look at the Hymn, No. 265, while I give them the 
original version of St. Anatolius as translated by 
Neale, they will see what I mean. Please observe 
that this Hymn is an illustration of that clause in 
: the Nicene Creed which declares that Christ is God 

■ of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. 



258 



Hymn 265, as in the Revised Hyinnal : 



" Fierce was the wild billow, 

Dark was the night ; 
Oars labored heavily, 

Foam gii mmered white ; 
Mariners trembled — {Trembled the mariners) 

Peril was nigii — [Peril was high) 
Then said the God of God, 

' Peace ! it is I. ' 

II. 

" Ridge of the mountain- wave. 
Lower thy crest ; 
Wail of the tempest wind— {Wail of Euro- 

clydon) 

Be thou at rest. 
Peril can none be, — {Sorroiu can never he) 

Sorrovv' must fly, — {Darkness niust fly) 
When saith the Light of Light, 

' Peace ! it is I.' " 

I have given here the first and second stan- 
zas of this hymn, as one among numerous illustra- 
tions of unwarrantable alterations in the original 
of hymns. 

The alterations are in the body of the hymn : the 
original lines ai'e found on the right in brackets. 

They speak for themselves. The chief error is in 
the second stanza, where the very idea of the au- 
thor is lost — i.e., that darkness is dissipated by the 
Light of Light. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time is up. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I move that his time 
be extended. 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. I will 
ask only three minutes. ["Go on."] 

For what purpose this alteration was made it is 
utterly impossible for me to think. 

Mr. PIERRSPONT, of Long Island. That is one 
of the copies in which the wrong plates were put in 
by the binder, from whose edition I have in my 
hand a correct copy. 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. I beg 
your pardon ; it is exactly the same : 

" Peril can none be. 
Sorrow must fly, 
WTien saith the Light of Light, 
' Peace ! it is I.' 

I have ah^eady given the original : 

' ' Sorrow can never be, 
Darkness must fly. 
When saith the Light of Light, 
' Peace! it is I.' " 

In the first stanza the dactylic measure is de- 
stroyed in the line, "Mariners trembled," and for 
what purpose I cannot imderstand. 

The original of this hymn was written by a 
person who knev^ what he wanted to say, and 
he said it in very good Greek. Neale tran- 
slated it very iiterallj" and very beautifully. It 
is now intended for the use of people on the mid- At- 
lantic, and I cannot see why " wail of Euroclydon" 
should have been stricken out and "wail of the tern- 
pest- wind " inserted. 

I shall not take up the time of the Convention. I 
wish I had a little more time. I hope that the Com- 
mittee will be continued or another committee ap- 
pointed, and proper alterations, of which I have 
given only one illustration, will be made. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I have only a few words to say. There is be- 
fore us in the first place a joint resolution of the 
House of Bishops, the report of our Committee, and 
an amendment proposed by the Clerical Deputy 
from Massachusetts. I am in favor, let me say, of 



passing the resolution sent down by the House of 
Bishops, and the report of the Committee ; and I 
am opposed to the proposition of the 
Clericar Deputy from Massachusetts and for 
this reason. Everybody knows that there 
is nothing which is lawful, "or can be made lawful 
I by the General Convention, excepc it be passed hj 
Canon. When, therefore, a joint resolution is 
passed here, whatever else it is, it is not law. That 
is a thing which does not need to be proved. Every 
I lawyer in this House, every Canonist, everybody 
who has been a member of it for any length of 
time, knows distinctly that whatever maj' be the 
force of a joint resolution, it never can have the 
I force of law. It has force, very great force, it 
has very great moral force ; it has such force 
i that it seems to me every loyal person connected 
! with this Church must submit to it. But at 
the same time it camaot have the force of law. 
i When, therefore, the Clerical Deputy from Massa- 
j chusetts brings in a resolution w-nich speaks as 
though this resolution could give the Hymnal the 
{ force of law, and states that it is unlawful to do this 
I or the other thing, he is simply statmg a thing which 
j is incorrect, and I suppose that the mind of this 
Church has felt that, and that is the reason why this 
^ Hymnal has never been enforced by Canon, 
i Whatever authority it has had comes from its 
1 being adopted by a joint resolution. I suppose the 
j reason for that is that, in the words of the Commit- 
j tee, it cannot be regarded as a finality. It is a tenta- 
I five thing; it is a contribution towards a Hymnal, 
i We are not in a position to make it permanent; and 
however one may value this Hymnal, however 
much he may approve of ' it, I suppose 
it is impossible to persuade a majority of 
this House that at the present time we v/ouid on any 
[ account accept it as a finality, and make it unlaw- 
j f ul to use anything else, however undesirable it may 
: be to use anything else. 

i Now, I want to sa,y a single word on that subject, 
j which does not affect the action of this House, if 1 
j were able to make an amendment to the joint 
\ resolution brought doTvn from the House of 
\ Bishops, I should propose to omit the words "no 
other hymns may be used." I do not make 
i that amendment, because I am quite sure at this 
I stage of the proceedings, and under the current 
impression that prevails in this House, it would not 
pass, I only want to say one word by way of pro- 
test against this idea of this Hymnal being a finality , 
: or that it is undesirable that we should use in the 
f Divine service other Hymns than those in this 
Hymnal. 

I I would like to ask how, after all, it is that we 
! get good hymns. Is it from the decisions of com- 
i mittees ? Do committees, after all, do anyching but 
\ register the thought and mind of the Church on the 
subject of hymns I This is easily seen if you will 
only consider how difficult it would be_ for a com- 
mittee really to select a good hymn, in the first 
place, in order to select a good hymn, a man has 
got to have a knowledge of poetry ; in the 
next place, he has got to have a knowleoge 
of what is the kind of poetry that makes 
up a proper hymn. In the third place, inas- 
much as hymns are meant to be sung, he ought to 
have a certain knowledge of music ; and because 
the hymns are to be used and sung in divine worship 
it is necessary that he should be sound in theology. 

Now, when you consider the character of a com- 
mittee, and how unlikely it is that there will 
be on it all these things combined, much 
more all these things combined in the 
majority, you can readily understand how very 
difficult it must be for any Committee to make up, 
except they register the voice of the Church, a pro- 
per hymn. Indeed, the result of the action of 



259 



most Committees on this subject is to do what some 
one spoke of here yesterday ; that is, make a com_- 
promise; leave out certain hymns and put in certain 
others, leaving out certain liymns which have what 
they consider objectionable expressions. Now, I think 
that this Chui'ch will have learned one thing: that 
whatever else you may say of the benefit of compro- 
mises, they ai'e paralyzing; tbey have the effect of 
preventing people from doing anything. Of 
all other thmgs, a hymn needs to be free; it 
needs to express the heart and life and emotions 
and affections of the people ; and hymns that are 
built up, and hymnals that ai-e coristructed on a 
principle of corapromise, never can be a finaiity 
in a free Chm'ch. 

I want, now, to say another -^v ord. There is some- 
thing very remarkable about this Hymnal that we 
have before us, and I never have seen the attention 
of the people called to it. It consists of some five 
hundrea hymns, and bi that Hymnal there are actu- 
ally, though there are five hundred of them, only 
thirty-nine written by American ^vriters, and o"f 
those thirty-nine h vnnns there are only ten written 
by men who were churchmen, and of those 
ten churchmen who wrote those hyrmis 
there are only three living, and two of 
those wrote translations. In other words, 
at this present moment in the American Church, 
there is only one man living who has written a 
hymn that is a^llowed to be used in our Hymnal, 
and this is a name which I can mention to the honor 
and reverence of all of us, the E.ev. Dr. Muhlen- 
berg, of St. Luke's HospitaL So I say that that dis- 
tinguished gentleman stands on a solitary eminence, 
all alone in the icy, cold fact that he is the solitary 
American clergyman who has written a hymn for 
the Am^erican Church to sing. 

Look into these 520 hymns, and wha.t do you iind ? 
You will find no less than 202 hymns that have been 
written by writers who have lived since the year 
1 800 in England or Scotland, and of these 202 hymns 
74 are written by living English writers, and the 
reason is this : that the Church of England, bound 
as she is by the State, has nevertheless permitted 
free singing and free hymn-writing. I have an 
illustration of it, which was fortunately brought to 
my notice within the past two years. WLen the 
Church of England estabhshed that day of inter- 
cession for missionary purposes (a plan which we 
have adopted in this country) , they wanted hymns 
to sing, and the Rev. F. J. Stone, who wrote that 
beautiful hymn which we sang at the opening of the 
Convention, "The Church's one foundation is Jesus 
Christ, our Lord," knew that there was a chance for 
hymns, and so he wrote two for the day of inter- 
cession, two grand hjmins. A clergyman of the 
Church of England knows, and a lay- 
man of the Church of England knows, tha.t 
if God the Holy Ghost has given him the 
power to write a hj^mn and to sing it, there is a 
chance that it will be borne up to heaven upon the 
tide of the worship of the Church ; and an American 
knows that he has not the slightest chance. The 
only chance he has is the brief immortality which 
may come in the colunms of some of our admirable 
Church papers ; and so this way of making hymn s is 
simply an interdict upon hymnology. It is saying to 
the American Church, "Do not let your hearts go 
forth to God in hymns ; we will borrow from Eng- 
land and Scotland." 

I have not anything to say, except that I want to 
make my protest against these bonds and shackles 
and fetters. I go for freedom, because, in the 
words of Holy David, the Church of God is for ever 
swelling in its heart with its word, and year after 
year it wants to burst forth with "shig unto the 
Lord" — not the hymns that we borrow, but "sing 
iinto the Lord a new song." 



Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. Mr. 
President, inasmuch as I did not consume the ten 
minutes allotted to me by the wise rule of this 
House, I venture to avail myself of my privilege of 
speaking twice in the same debate, to use a few 
moments in which to pimcture the a.rgument of the 
Deputy from Wisconsin. 

To the latter part of this argument I Imve nothing 
to say. I remember well hearing it three years ago 
in Baltimore, and being struck by its eloquence ; 
but I submit that this question 'is not upon the 
merits of the collection, but upon another point 
entirely. And I shall addi'ess myself wholly to his 
argument in regard to the legal point. It is not 
new to me. It was urged upon me in my own 
Diocese by a clergyman who was using in his 
Church "Hymns Ancient and Modem;" and he 
justified himself to me by saying that the Hymnal was 
only in force by a joint resolution. Now I propose 
to meet that point fairly and squarely, and I m.eet it 
by calling the attention of the ingenious Deputy 
from "Wisconsin to the fact that we sing hymns in 
this Church only by permission; and the joint reso- 
lution undertakes to say what hymns we are per- 
mitted to sing. Now, sir, I ask the Deputy from 
Wisconsin, who has denied that joint resolutions 
have the weight of law, whether a Rubric has the 
force of law. 
Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Certainly. 
Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. Cer- 
tainly, he says. Now I read from one Rubric, and 
I might read from others, in the Book of Common 
I Prayer; I read from the Rubric m the Holy Com- 
munion, whei'e it is most fit that it should stand : 

" Here shall be sung a hymn or part of a hymn, 
from the selection for the fasts and feasts." 

I submit that if a joint resolution upon this subject 
has no force, then this Church is put in the singTilarly 
false and absurd position of enjoining something 
that cannot be done. 

Now, sir, I do not insist particularly upon the 
word " lawfully, " in my resolution. If it will aid 
the gentleman from Wisconsin in voting for it, I 
wiU very cheerfully strike it out. AU I ask for that 
resolution is that it shaU have the same force as 
that injunction in regard to light and unseemly 
music. Does the gentleman wish to consider that that 
is an open question ? 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. That has 
come down to us as a Canon. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. But 
as it has stood in the Prayer-Book, it has stood on the 
force of a joint resolution. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsm. StiU, I 
think that everybody has seen that it had not the 
force of law, and, consequently, the Bishops, feel- 
I ing tha.t, have sent it down to us this time as a Canon, 
I so as to give it the force of law. 
i Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. Be 
that as it may — and there is some force in the re- 
mark of the Deputy from Wisconsin — my main 
argument is irrefragable, that in our Rubrics the 
Church requires the singing of hymns, and in her 
Hymnal she sets forth such hymns as may be smig, 
I and no others. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. 1 am very 
sorry, Mr. President, to be obliged to address my- 
i self, even in a few words, to this House, for, in the 
I first place, I am not in a fit physical condition to 
i do so; and, in the next place, I supposed that I 
j was under bonds to my reverend friend from Long 
1 Island to keep my mouth shut on this subject, 
j A resolution comes down as in the nature of a joint 
resolution from the House of Bishops, which you have 
I heard read. I propose to offer in this House an 
j amendment taking away what I fear from the char- 
acter of that resolution may be considered to be 
i the quality of finality in this Hymnal. That resolu- 



260 



tion was accepted, and now comes down to this lower j 
House for action. There is every reason, I think, 
why this Hymnal should not be accepted as a flnali- '< 
ty by the Church ; and my Rev. brother, the Deputy 
from Massachusetts, will probably be surprised to : 
learn that, in offering his amendment, he is going 
far beyond the intention or the desire of the Com- 
mittee on the Hymnal in the other House, or the 
House of Bishops itself. 1 

There are several general reasons against making 
this book a finality. There are three ways in which | 
a Hymnal may be endeavored to be reached. One | 
is that adopted in the English Church; another is a | 
distinctly tentative one, such as I supposed we were ; 
pursuing here ; and the third is that of dumb ac- | 
quiescence and acceptance, and this I take it to be | 
the method in fact which the Rev. Deputy from j 
Massachusetts professes that we should adopt or ac- • 
cept in this case. j 

It is commonly supposed in this country that the 
allowing of all hymns to be sung in the English j 
Church is a necessity forced upon that Church by j 
reason of the difficulty of reaching any distinct ac- i 
tion by that Church on this subject, or any other, i 
If any one supposes that this is the fact, t would I 
simply refer him to so high an authority as Sir | 
Roundell Palmer, who maintains — taking precisely, I 
I think, the view of the R everend Deputy from Wis- : 
consin — that it is the best condition of things. I will | 
not enlarge upon this point. I only wish to show that j 
there are strong reasons why no Hymnal should be : 
accepted as final, and forced by law upon the use of | 
the Church. 

The other method is the distinctly tentative one, i 
and I supposed we had been pursuing, and were un- 
derstood to be pursuing, this method in this Church. | 
It is the view, I believe, of the whole of the Com- 
mittee on the Hymnal ; it is the view of the House ; 
of Bishops, if I am not mistaken. i 

I said that the Deputy from Massachusetts went } 
beyond the whole Committee on Hymnal and be- | 
yond the Upper House. I say, on good authority, I 
that the resolution of that House, so far as it seeras I 
to have any declaration of finahty in this matter, j 
was passed under two distinct influences in that \ 
Upper House. First of all, it is a resolution of de- ; 
spair. They entered upon a most difficult work. | 
They found themselves criticised on all hands, and | 
they simply submit for themselves, " we are unwill- | 
ing to enter any further on tliis work ; if you are to I 
have it prosecuted still more, you must appoint an- | 
other committee for it." That was the idea in the i 
passage of their resolution. Then came se- 
condly the question of the royalty. You will [ 
remember that this Convention granted a royalty | 
to certain publishers in the matter of the Hymnal. | 
This royalty action is now pleaded in bar of any j 
further revision of the Hynmal. But I do think | 
the matter of the Hymnal of this Church one of too i 
great importance to be stopped by any such ! 
considerations as. those which I have men- < 
tioned. I believe that the Church as a i 
body is not prepared to accept this Hymn j 
Book as something final to be bound solely to i 
its use, and, therefore, I trust that this House will ; 
think more and think much before they do anything 
that will give countenance to that idea, by any res- ! 
olution of their going, as I have said, beyond the ! 
wish, or the desire, or the expectation, of the 
Hymnal Committee themselves, and make this book 
something that we are obliged to use. 

ELECTION OE MISSIONARY BISHOPS. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would remind the j 
House that there was an order of the day appointed 
for twelve o'clock — the election of a Missionary 
Bishop to China. The House wiU determine whether 
to go on with the present matter and postpone that I 



order, or take up the order and complete it, and then 
resume the question of the Hymnal. 

Rev. Dr. BEERS, of Albany. I suggest that, as 
there are three other nominations besides that for 
the Episcopate to China to come before the House, 
the consideration of the China Bishop be postponed, 
and fixed for the same times that tlie other cases are 
to be considered. 

Mr. OTIS, of Elinois. I move that they all be 
fixed for four o'clock tliis afternoon. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the order of 
the day be postponed until four o'clock this after- 
noon, and that at the same time the other messages 
from the House of Bishops, nominating Missionary 
Bishops, be taken up. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Are we obliged 
to go into secret session on these nominations ? 
[" Yes, yes,"] Would it not be more convpnient to 
have it at a time when our friends would not 
have to be turned out ? ["Oh, no."] 

The motion of Mr, Otis was agreed to. 

THE HYMNAL. 

The PRESIDENT. The matter of the Hymnal is 
now before the House. 

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I appear in a very embarrassing position as a 
kind of champion for a cliild which seems to be 
abandoned by those who brought it into being. I 
hold in my hand the book adopted thi^ee years ago 
by an almost unanimous vote of this House, and 
adopted, I maintain, as a finahty; for the 
Reverend Deputy from Wisconsin moved, tkree 
years ago, ' that it be adopted provision- 
ally imtil the next General Convention, and that 
motion was voted down ; consequently this book was 
intended to be final, as much as the action of a Gen- 
eral Convention can bind the Church in future. Of 
course if is possible for any General Convention to 
revoke the action of a previous Convention ; but as 
far as we coidd do it, by a vote all but unanimous, 
this is the child of the last General Convention, 
and is the Hymnal of the Church [holding up 
the Hymnal of 1871], with the single exception 
that on page 153 of that Journal we allowed and in- 
structed the Committee to leave out eleven 
specified hymns, gave them permission to insert 
several, not specifying how many, although they 
read the first lines of thirty-one, I believe ; and 
then the Committee were allowed to correct gram- 
matical inaccuracies and rhetorical blemishes. 
This is absolutely all. I ask to be corrected if I am 
not in the right position. I ask it for this reason : 
I have been told by one or two members of this 
Convention that I made a great mistake when, after 
waiting two years and a half in all humility, sup- 
posmg that the Committee w^ould find out their er- 
ror and retract it, I at last, under my signature, 
came out and published my statement in the Mis- 
sionary Record of Charleston, and sent it to every 
member of that Committee, personally, hoping that 
they would take the initiative in what I considered 
the only right, proper, manly course. I trust I may 
not be seeming to reflect upon the conduct of this 
Committee any more than is absolutely necessary. 

Now as to this matter of finality, I have but to 
refer to one thing. Something has been read f rom- 
the remarks of Rev. Dr. Howe, who, at the last Cone 
vention, introduced the report on the Hymnal. He 
proposed that the Hymnal Committee should be 
continued to this the next General Convention ; but 
he stated afterward that the purpose was simply to 
correct inaccuracies and blemishes, and noth- 
ing more. More than that, it was on the 
seventh or the ninth day of the session, I think, 
that he said this, and the action that I read from 
was on the sixteenth day of the session, page 153 of 
the Journal of the last General Convention. Re, 



261 



member that this was after a specified Tuesday, on ; 
which, at twelve o'clock, the liberty was denied ; 
members of the Convention to suggest any 
further alterations or improvements in the 
Hymnal. It is all fresh in the mem- 
or}^ of the members of the last Convention. 
I was called upon to present my suggestions in : 
writing, and I did it before that day to the Chair- ' 
man. On that Tuesday the matter ended. I think j 
I am right. On the sixteenth day of the session | 
Dr. Howe brought in the report of the Joint Com- | 
mittee on the H^minal, and he asked liberty to omit ! 
eleven hymns, to insert several, and stated that : 
the work had disclosed some literary blemishes and ^ 
errors of tj'^oography and so on. The Committee 
recommended the adoption of the following reso- i 
lution : 

' ' Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That 
this report be adopted, and the Committee be in- 1 
structed to amend the Hymnal accordingly. " 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Will the gentle- | 
man read also from the 76th page, in the message ! 
from the House of Bishops, the resolution that the | 
Committee on Hymnal should be continued With [ 
that message we concurred. j 

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia. This was on | 
the ninth day of the session. 

" Resolved, that the Committee on the Hymnody j 
of the Church shall be continued, with instructions ! 
to make such alterations in the text of the Hymnal ! 
now adopted, as may be needed in order to secure { 
accuracy and literary completeness." | 

I am willing to grant all that. That is just what 
I stated before. Now to confirm my position I 
turn to another place. On page 156 of the Journal 
of the last Convention we had a Joint Committee 
of conference in regard to the matter of the 
royalty. It seems that Committee reported to both 
Houses ; and while we were in consideration of it, a 
message came down from the House of Bishops dif- 
fering from the exact resolution reported in the 
House of Deputies by only one word, and I think 
that that can hardly be interpreted to have much 
weig-ht: 

"Resolved, That this Hymnal, when finally cor- 
rected by the Committee"^ thereon, shall be free to 
be printed and published by all responsible publish- 
ers. " 

They were to correct it only on points of accura- 
cy and the removal of certain literary blemishes. 
On page 156, the same resolution, reported from the 
same Joint Committee, has one word that I think 
is excedingly significant : 

"Resolved (the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties concurring), That the Hymnal, now finally cor- 
rected by the Committee thereon, shall be free to | 
be printed and published by all responsible publish- I 
ers. " j 

Now I do not know but I think that the difl:erence 
between "when" and "now" was a mere mistake 
of a word expressing the idea of the whole Joint 
Committee and of the Convention. 

Now I want to adduce with all due respect certain 
plain woi-ds: I 

" It is hereby certified — " I 

This I read from the third page of the Hymnal, j 
revised edition ; it is the same also in the Hymnal j 
that has been published. 

" It is hereby certified that this is a true and accu- 
rate edition of the Hymnal thus adopted." 

A strong certificate ! When I allowed myself, 
two weeks ago, to be limited to five minutes, I barely 
touched upon the points of difference, I would be 
willing, if it were necessary, as I said then, to stand 
here one hour and read from this pubhshed book, 
hymns that cannot, by any possibility, be said to be 
different from those adopted in the Hymnal of the 
Convention on the ground of mere mistake, as the 



gentleman from Long Island said this morning. The 

changes in the hymn which v/as read by the Deputy 
from Central Pennsylvania could not have been 
made by mere mistake. The variations in the very 
first hymn in this book could not possibly have been 
brought about by mistake — one whole stanza omit- 
ted ; two stanzas put in ; the word "God " changed 
to " Christ ;" and now this Committee, in their last 
final act of agreement, propose to change the last 
line of the fii'st verse to an entirely different read- 
ing. I hope the Committee will be discharged, or 
we shall have more revisions flying in upon us. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time is up. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I hope he will 
be allowed to be heard further. He has this matter 
very much at heart. He feels that there is some- 
thing to be said, and I think the Committee desires 
him to have all the time he wants. He ought cer- 
tainly to have five or ten minutes more. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I understand he 
is here to prove that there have been fifteen hundred 
changes imauthorizedly made, and I move that he 
have sufficient time. I move that he have half an 
hour for that pm-pose. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move that the gentle- 
man from Georgia have ten minutes more. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia. I will briefly 
call the attention of the Convention to the changes 
wrought m the very first hymn of the Plymnal, and 
here I will also say that it is almost precisely in the 
revision as in the Hymnal printed two and a half 
years ago. As I remarked two weeks ago, the or- 
der of the hymns has been changed, and 
I shall have to read from hymn No. 6, instead 
of hymn No. 1. For some reason or other, 
I suppose to accommodate some theory of music, or 
in order to compress, as the Committee say, certain 
matters, this Hymnal begins, as the Gospel begins, 
with the preparation foi- the First Advent. The 
hymnal printed begins with the Last Judgment. 
I do not know how it is that this change has been 
brought about. I will read from the Hynmal adopted 
by the Convention : 

" Lo ! He comes in clouds descending, 
Once for favored sinners slain ; 
Thousand thousand saints attending 
Svvell the triumph of His train : 

Alleluia ! 
Christ appears on earth again." 

" Every eye shall now behold Him 
Robed in dreadful majesty ; 
They who set at naught and sold Him, 
Pierced and nail'd Him to the tree, 

Deeply wailing. 
Shall the true Messiah see." 

Here comes the change : 

"Those dear tokens of his Passion 
Still his dazzling body bears ; 
Cause of endless exultation 
To his ransomed worshippers ; 

With what rapture 
Gaze we on those glorious scars ! " 

Then you skip two stanzas and come to : 

" Yea, amen, let all adore Thee, 
Pligh on Thine eternal throne ; 
Saviour, take the power and glory ; 
Claim the kingdoms for Thine own : 
come quickly ! 
Alleluia ! Amen ! " 

Now, permit me to say that there are fifty-seven 
hymns in this book adopted by the Convention 
which are reproduced in this new book with one or 



262 



more verses added, or one or more verses left out, 
and, in one case, seven stanzas left out. Most of 
these hymns as they stand in the book printed, with 
only four or five exceptions, stand precisely so in 
tliis book that is now called the revised Hymnal. 
Twenty-nine hymns in this book differ by variations 
in words that exceed one line ; "eight only 
are corrected in this book. There are, 
then, a large number of hymns. I think something 
like seventy, printed in this book, which difCer from 
the book adopted, by changes of words less than a 
line. I have not time to read them— I would be per- 
fectly willing to do it if time allowed. Most of 
these are reproduced in this Hymnal. 

Now, the point I make is sim.ply this, and I do it 
in ail modesty ; I do it, as I think, as simply a de- 
fender of the right, a defender of the dignity and 
authority of this House ; when a committed trust 
is assigned to any body of gentleman, is it not prop- 
erly to be expected that it wiU be executed strictlv 
according to the letter ? Consequently when we 
find in the report presented to us all this slurred 
over, as if it were simply a mistake, or, as in one 
place, a statement that the Committee ask leave to 
acknowledge two mistakes that have been 
made, because for reasons partly personal, and 
partly from the distance which separated 
them, they could not state explicitly, 
etc. Is it quite the thing for that Committee to 
slide over such deviations, not rnistakes— such pur- 
osed and designed deviations as 1 have referred to ? 
thijik it is a very important thing that this 
Hjonnal should not certainly be made a finality. I 
wiM at the proper time offer a resolution to this 
effect. 

"Resolved, That the Hymnal be published in ac- 
cordance with the resolution on "oaare 153 of the 
Journal of 1871, and that this instmction be carried 
out by a special committee of t^vo, one clergyman 
and one layman. " 

have now to say in regard to this Revised 
Hymnal that comes before us, we have here in con- 
nection with this revised Hymnal about seventy 
changes, as the Committee themselves say, from 
this printed book. They say in some places they 
have made substitutions. By what authority ^ is 
that a mistake i By what authoi ity do they drop 
from the Hymnal of 1871 and insert in this new 
Hymnal I do not quite understand it. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The Conven- 
tion has nothing to do with the revised Hymnal 
until it is adopted. 

^ Rev. Dr. BEISEDICT, of Georgia^ Then I say 
that I object to the adoption of this Hymnal, which 
will cause hundreds of congregations who have 
adopted the Hymnal agreed to in 1871 verv consider- 
able inconvenience. I'or instance, if you will turn 
to the 430th hymn of the Hymnal that is revised or 
adopted— I care not which— you will find that 
that hymn which is in the Hymnal printed, 
is an entirely different hymn, almost in no respect 
iiie that adopted, except in the general 
current of thought and in the rhyme; 
you will find that they have changed all that again 
in the Hymnal adopted ; but the very next hymn, the 
431st iiymn, "Round the Lord in glory seated," 
they have allowed to remain just as it is. There 
are many cases of this sort, where one hymn fol- 
lows another, wliere one hvmn conforms to the 
Hymnal adopted three years ago, and the next 
hymn following, or a few hymns following, differs 
in such important respects as the first hymii differs 
as I have shown you. 

Now this Hymnal that is reported to us as a re- 
vised edition has twenty-five hymns in it— I think 
they propose to make it twentv-six or twenty-seven 
—which are not in the Hymnal that has been used 
in many congregations for two years or two and 



a-half . They have dropped out fourteen hymns, I 
think, and in their places inserted other hymns, 
some of them new, some of them old Prayer-Book 
h3Tnns or psahns. They have, then, added at the 
end eleven hymns; "Rock of Ages" is printed 
twice; "Griiide me, O Thou Great Jehovah," is 
printed twice*; and. they propose to print twice the 
hymn "Jesus. Saviour of my Soul," printed in one 
place "Jesus, Lover of my Soul." 

I really think that the adoption of this H^mmal 
will cause almost all ■ congregations who have rised 
the other the necessity of abandoning those books 
and purchasing this alone. Perhaps it will help the 
royalty, and it may be that that is a considei'ation, 
but I think it is hardly the thing for the congrega- 
tions themselves. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. Mr. President, 
I desire to call attention to a few inaccuracies in 
the proposed Hymnal, and I do it for the purpose of 
illustrating the propriety of the argument of refer- 
ring back the proposed 'Hymnal to the Committee 
who have revised it, and indeed the necessity of that 
course. The alterations that are suggested 
upon the piece of paper which the Com- 
mittee have' submitted to us as having been 
made to the Hymnal, have not in all cases Vjeen 
made. There are slight inaccuracies still. As the 
Convention is supposed to act on these proposed 
changes, it should act advisedly, and therefore it 
seems to me that the resolution proposed by the 
Committee itself should be put in such form that, 
instead of being discharged, the Committee should 
be continued in order to make the changes actualhvT 
v/hich are reported on this sheet of paper a,s having 
been made. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Allow me to 
say that the Committee has been discharged by the 
House of Bishops, and there is only in this Rouse 
one member of it, and he is a ia-yman. You v/ill 
have to make a new committee. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. It seems to 
me that it is eminently proper that the gentlemen 
who have heretofore acted on this Committee 
should act again. If we have a new com- 
mittee, we shall have a. new Hymnal. 
Perhaps every one in this House would suggest 
amendments that he could make to one of the five 
hundred hymns, and so we should have at least tv,-o 
hundred or three hundred alterations. You must 
adopt something which in the opinion of a wise and 
sensible committee is about right. Therefore, 
adoptiog the suggestion of the gentleman from Long 
Island, at the proper time I shall move that the matter 
be referred back to the Committee to make such al- 
terations as they have designed to make and no others, 
and that the vacanciesjn the Committee be filled up. 

Now, to illustrate: In hynm No. 87 it is proposed 
to change "now" for "once," and "yet" for 
"yes." That ha.s already been done, I find, so that 
-it IS a mere inaccm-acy in the original print. So it 
is with the changes "in Nos. 97 and 98. In hymn 
No. 103 the letter " h " is to be dropped from ""Hal- 
lelujah," but that is insufficient, because the " j " 
should also be converted into an " i, " In hymn No. 
176, the word " triumphamt " should be "and tri- 
umph," and also "ascents of heaven" should be 
substituted for "dizzy steep of heaven" ; but in 
the revised book I find that it is printed "ascent," 
in the singular, instead of "ascents." 

In Hymn 205 a verse is actually ommitted and no 
note is taken of it in the alterations. I will not take 
up time. There are at least twenty alterations 
which are not yet noted and should be. This is aU I 
have to say on that point. 

The learned and eloquent Deputy from Wisconsin 
has repeated a legal proposition which, if I remem- 
ber aright, he and I once contested a few years ago, 
that a resolution adopted by the two Houses of the 



263 



G-eneral Convention is not law for the clergy. I 
assure the gentleman — and I think I shall be sus- 
tained by the paiiiamentary members of this 
House — that a resolution is a law, and that the Pres- j 
byters at least, if not the laymen, of the Church, i 
are obliged to obey the laws" of the Church. It is ' 
an error which has ci-ept among the Presbjrfcers, and ■ 
it was brought up some years ago in 
discussing a question whether the resolution, ' 
adopted by the General Convention in 1868, i 
relating to Ritual, was a law of the ^ 
Church. I remember that the question was j 
discussed in Congress some yeai-s ago whether or | 
not a resolatiou of the Senate and House of Repre- | 
sentatives was a law. If I mistake not — and if I ' 
am I shall be corrected by a gentleman better in- I 
formed — they appointed a committee, and the tv»^o ' 
Houses adopted the conclusion of that 
committee that the action of the two Houses, | 
whether by resolution or by enactment, was the I 
will of the two Houses in Congress assembled j 
and must be obeyed. It may be that as a resolution | 
of this House does not provide a penalty for its vio- I 
lation, a Presbyter may not be subject to fjunish- | 
ment for the disobeying of a resolution, but if he j 
desires to obey the General Convention or any enact- ! 
ment of the General Convention, he is to obey a res- 
olution as well as a Canon. 

Rev. Dr. ANDERSON, of Virginia. Mr. Presi- 
dent, with regard to this question of finality it is 
not competent for this House to make a finality on j 
any such subject. We cannot bind future Conven- j 
tions. They may take it up hereafter, and all our 
doings hitherto will be liable to be reconsidered. 
I think that point therefore is disposed of. 

The nest point is in regard to the various criti- | 
cisms that have been passed on this book. There • 
have been some a,ble criticisms that I have read 
with great inteiest from many of my brethren ; but ! 
I say here that the larger part of them has been ; 
made by theological students and women and boys, i 
and that I consider them of no value. 

So likewise about this being a thanldess office. I 
with many of my clerical and lay friends here 
thank the Committee for their work in this matter. 
It is not a thankless work by any manner of means, 
quite the reverse. 

So likewise in regard to these cori-ections. I am | 
aware that they may be made, but that we are to i 
wait until we get a resolution of all these questions 
is impossible. We shall never have a Hjamial at all 
if we do that. I do not expect to have my views 
carried out, but I have examined this matter with j 
very great care, and I am prepared to say, from my \ 
knowledge and consultmg with a great number of | 
people, that I believe this book to be the best extant, j 
and I do not beheve there are five men in this House i 
who can get up and say that they can put their hand ; 
on any one book equalto this which is now submit- 
ted to our consideration. Therefore, I think all we I 
have to do now is to authorize the use of this book, i 
and prohibit, by Canon, the use of aiPbooks not an- i 
thorized by this Church, That seems to me quite j 
suflicient. As to the errors which have been pointed j 
out by the gentleman fi'om Nev/ York, I think it is i 
a very reasonable proposition that they should be j 
corrected, and I doubt not the Committee will con- j 
sent to take that matter in hand, and to make those i 
few corrections, and we can pass upon them, if it is ! 
done by that authority, before this Convention ad- 
journs. 

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky. Mr. President, : 
I rise to say that 1 shall not support this Hymnal as 
a flna,lity; the reasons I need not adduce, for they ' 
have already been given. The fact of the maiiy in- ; 
accuracies which have been stated is quite suffi- 
cient, 

I believe our hymns will continue to grow to the 



end of time, just as they have been growing in Our 
collection for the last three thousand five 
hundred years. The Psalms from 90 to 100 are attrib- 
uted to Moses. Lightfoot says he wrote Psalm 98 in 
Egypt. That gives us a date of one thousand five 
hundred years before Christ. Then, if we look at 
the Psalms further on, we shall see that the Psalm 
commencing with the words, 

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down," 

brings us to the year 518 B.C., when the Temple ser- 
vice was restored. In the interval, we find a Psalm 
composed on the ascension of the Ark from the 
house of Obededom to Mount Zion, under Da-vid, 
about the year 1040 B. c. I mention these as illustra- 
tions of how the sacred poetry of the Hebrews grew. 
Now let us come down to our own Church and our 
own time. We have in the old Prayer-Book, I think, 
about 'S:i hymns first set forth hy the General Con- 
vention and authorized to be used in the churches. 
We decided that that collection was not a finality, 
for we increased the number to 212. Then again, 
in still later times, and very near the present, we 
authorized, I think, in 1865, 60 additional hymns, 
making the number about 270. Then, at the last 
General Convention, we put forth this Hymnal, 
increasing the number to over 500 hymns. 

There are m.any of these hymns in the Hymnal 
that I think are week and unnecessary, and that this 
Committee should sit perpetually, should be a con- 
tinuous committee, should revise the hymns and 
suggest what should be dropped, and continue to 
enrich the H5rmnal with all the additions that may 
be made in the way of sacred poetry from time to 
time, and all the corrections that may be necessary, 
I hope that the same Committee will be continued, 
the vacancies being filled in it. 

This is all I have to say as the reason why I shall 
vote against this Hvninal being a finality. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. Mr. President, I do 
not rise to discuss the Hymnal, and it v/ould be very 
unnecessary after the remarks of my friend from 
Wisconsin ; but I rise to call the attention of this 
House to a proposition amiounced by that learned 
and distinguished gentleman, whom we all hold 
in so much respect, and that is that a joint 
resolution of the two Houses has not the ef- 
fect of law. Now, sir, I venture to offer my 
small contribution by way of opinion in this House, 
and in doing this I feel that I am supported by seve- 
ral other gentlemen of the legal profession. I think 
that a joint resolution of the two Houses has the 
force of law, as much so as a Canon ; and, if I re- 
member rightly, one of the most important acts of 
the Congress of the United States, which 
has had a more important bearing upon 
the destiny of this country than any 
other in my time, was passed by joint 
resoluoion. I mean the admission of Texas into this 
Union. It is certainly a novel proposition to me 
that a joint resolution of the two Houses cannot 
have the force of la,w. I think it is important that 
this question shouhi be met, so that we may under- 
stand that when we again pass a joint resolution we 
mean thereby to bind all those who corne within the 
pov/er of the law of this body. 

In reference to the Hymnal and the question of 
finality, I do not think thei-e is anything final in this 
world until the final judgment. We certainly have 
no right to bind future conventions. But I suppose 
the only question here is this, v/hether we shall 
continue the Joint Commission with a view of 
amending from time to time our Hymnal. I do hope 
that the Church is wiser than that, and that the very 
resolutions sent down by the House of Bishops will 
be adopted. I cannot imagine what else we can do, 
if we do anything at all. 

On the subject of the joint resolutions my learned 



legal friend from Western New York ( Mr. Smith) 
desires me to call the attention of this Convention 
to the fact that the ratification of the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer was by joint resolution. I hold, there- 
fore, that if it is referred to the legal gentlemen 
they will be quite unanimous that a joint i-esolution 
has the force of law. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Mr. Presi- 
dent, touching the point referred to by the gentle- 
man from Virginia last, we find that eveiy thing, 
not only in the Book of Common Prayer, but the Arti- 
cles of Religion, all the special orders, the services 
for the consecration of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons 
are set forth by joint resolution. That would 
seem to settle the legal question touching that 
point, so that even clerics can have no further doubt 
upon it. 

Sir, it seems to me after all the consideration we 
have had of this subject, that the sooner we come to 
the end of it the better. For nine years I think this 
matter of tiie Hymnal has bsen before the Church, 
floating about, receiving here one proposition and 
there another, according to the complexion or va- 
riety of men's minds, and nobody has been satis- 
fied. I would rathei" have a bold ap- 
proval of the Hymnal at once, though I 
never expect to see a Hymnal acceptable to all 
if I should live till doomsday. ' ' As many critics 
as men," we may safely say — and every man feels 
competent to criticise — and those criticisms will 
be founded upon principles to which others will not 
agree. We find some starting on a personal ground 
that a hymn should be precisely thus and so, mod- 
elled and shaped precisely after one given classical 
or approved pattern, and anything apart from that 
must be deemed erroneous and undesirable. Ac- 
cordingly some hymns are here on that model. 

Then again, subjective hymns are by some critics 
condemned. I have read an article in the Church 
Review entitled " Unreality of Hymns," and 
throughout the unreality was made to consist in 
the amount of spiritual quality and import there 
was in a hymn. It said that a communicant must 
not lament before God for his sins, for ' he is en- 
titled to go to the baptismal register and see that 
his name is there^ and that he is a regenerated child 
of God. That is the character of it all through. 
You must never bring in anything subjective, be- 
cause everything subjective is personal, belonging 
to the first person, and that can by no means be 
be brought into a congregation, which implies a 
collective person. 

One would think that that writer — I only mention 
him as a single critic by way of illustration — would 
find it diflieuit to repeat the General Confession. I do 
not know how he could repeat humbly the Confes- 
sion before God in the Communion Service. I 
do not know how he could repeat the 
last versicle of the Te Deum. That 
sort of criticism, however, has its effect 
on men's minds and influences their decision. It 
grows from the character of the mind, it grows 
from the character of each man's religious experi- 
ence, and each is apt to have an opinion at variance 
with that of other men. Now if we expect to have 
unity in our principle, or uniformity in our deci- 
sion, we shall be utterly mistaken. 

I might refer to the criticisms that have been 
made on Bishop Heber's great Communion hymn, 
and many other hymns containing figurative ex- 
pressions. Dr. Beecher is said to have remarked 
that Bishop Heber could not have been a converted 
man, for he had no spiritual-mindedness about him ! 
Be that as it may, you will find him a most exquisite 
religious poet ; but if you call his poetry Christian 
poetry alwa.ys, I think you will find yourself 
much mistaken. That would be a misnomer. The 
man wrote according to the nature of his mind and 



character, and yet the production of his mind and 
character might not be congenial to the intellec- 
tual tastes and tendencies of another man's mind 
and character. 

I might give many illustrations how the most 
beautiful and happy things have been criticised, and 
I refer to it simply as showing the extreme difficulty, 
if not impracticability, of our finding a uniform 
assent to any Hymnal that we may create oi- pro- 
duce. Hence, sir, in sheer hopelessness of anything 
better, I for one am in favor of a finality so far as 
this Convention can make a thing final. 
I would give the go-by to all royalties and 
everything else. I desire to see our Church se- 
tablished as a fixity in all her relations, but I 
would give plenty of verge and scope within 
all proper limits. Having deliberated, as we have 
done, on this question for nine years, having 
detei-mined what is the proper range in the use of a 
Hymnal, I would now adoj)t this. I feel very sure 
that although this book cannot be pronounced 
perfect by any man, yet no man familiar with a 
Hymnal will say, without a great deal of thought, 
that there is any better Hymnal in the language 
than is comprised in this book. It is va:n to 
expect to find five hundred perfect pieces of 
poetiy in the English tongue. Therefore let 
us take what we have before us. There 
are hymns here that suit the humble 
spiritual mind, knowing nothing of theology and 
nothing of religion but a supreme consciousness of 
a love to Christ, and that experience shall find 
familiar vent in some of these hymns ; while the 
most classically bred, the better taught, the most 
aesthetic Christian will just set those hymns aside as 
altogether unsuited to him. 

So, again — 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Rev. Dr. CAD Y, of New York. I rise simply to 
move that the vote be taken on tliis question on or 
before the hour of half -past one o'clock. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the question 
be taken upon the resolutions with regard to the 
Hymnal on or before half -past one. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Mr. President 
and gentlemen, with regard to the matter of this 
Hymnal, I have just a few words to say. Any man 
who looks over the religious world at this time of 
day will see that while liturgies are im- 
portant and desirable, yet the most im- 
portant agency in spreading new, strange 
and doubtful doctrine is Hymnals. Take 
the Methodists and see how they went out from the 
Church of England in doctrine by the Methodist 
Hymnals. See how the friends of Oliver Cromwell 
were put into frenzy by a Calvinistic version of 
the Psalms, and you see at this day every sect and 
denomination impelled by this liturgical music. I 
have only sixty of these new hymns. A friend of 
mine has about three hundred. They spawn upon 
the world like the frogs of Egypt. 

I do not say that this Hymnal is the best that we 
can have, but I do say that you and I, and every 
man who loves the truth of the Gospel, should be 
careful with regard to the propagation of new and 
strange doctrines. I say this Hymnal is not the 
best in the world, but I say it has come down from 
the Bishops of our Chm-ch, and from a 
committee whom I can trust in point of 
doctrine, and, therefore, while I do not accept it 
as a finality, I am perfectly satisfied with the selec- 
tion of hymns which these gentlemen have given us. 
I believe there will be no strange doctrine propa- 
gated by it. If you permit free hymn-singing, then 
you have the pecuhar doctrines of Henry Ward 
Beecher capable of being sung in this Church, ;^ou 
have the old Calvinistic hymns capable of being 



265 



su2i^-, and you have the ncv,- Ritualistic hymns, of 
which there are some vei y ncai" to Popery, capable 
of being sung. By this idea of unlimited hymn 
singing, we place e very clergyman in this Church 
in the position of a propagator of his own peculiar 
notions. The effect of this will be to appoint yon 
and me and everybody else as a gentleman whose 
business is fli st to preach his particular notions 
in the sermon, and then have a free hymn singing- 
left before him to select the hymn which the choir 
is to sing, and in which his people are to unite. 
That is a sort of operation I do not want to see 
established' in this Church of om's, for I do think it 
is time to keep up and maintain the doctrine of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church as in our Prayer-Book 
— our services, our offices, our Articles — it is estab- 
lished, and is binding upon me and every other 
clergyman in this Church who is an honest man. 

Now, Mr. President, although this Hymnal is 
weak in the legs, although I conceive that making 
1,500 changes in that Hymnal is an unauthorized 
procedure, still at the same time I must say that 
every clergjnnan and lajrman in this Convention 
who wishes peace, and who wishes the protection of 
the doctrine which we have received from our 
fa,thers and from the Church of England, and 
which we believe will yet be accepted by every one 
in this Church — I think every one of us is bound to 
accept this Hymnal as it comes down to us from the 
House of Bishops, hoping that in time we shall get 
something better. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina, Mr. 
President, I will not detain you long. In the main 
I agree entirely with the sentiment which has been 
expressed that it is better we should come as rapidly 
as possible to a conclusion in this matter. The 
Church is certainly standing at a disadvantage 
with the prospect perpetually before her of change 
in her hymnology. I heartily coincide, therefore, 
with the wish that has been expressed in that direc- 
tion. 

But there is one matter about which I am not sat- 
isfied. It is of much smaller consequence than 
some to which reference has been made, but still 
it is of sufficient consequence, it seems to me, to 
detain the action of this Committee for a little. 
I have reference to the arrangement of the 
Gloria Patrias at the end. I have found practi- 
cally, and I believe it has been the experience 
of all who have made use of the Hymnal, 
that it is very difficult indeed to find 
the Gloria Patria, which is appropriate to any hymn 
we use. This has to be found suddenly, and it is al- 
most impossible at any time to turn to it. It is a 
perfect thicket in which it is almost impossible to 
find our way, without having deliberately exam- 
ined it beforehand. It is often the case that 
the Gloria Patria is sung by the choir and almost 
concluded before the minister and congregation 
find out what they are singing. I submit, therefore, 
that in this respect the Hjrmnal should be recomit- 
ted in order that this part of it may be perfected. I 
would hke to have seen other things in the Hymnal, 
and yet I suppose I am like others in that respect. I 
cannot see why that glorious hymn we had in our 
hymn-book, "Eternal source of every joy," should 
have been left out. It is appropriate to a particular 
time of the year, and I could see no reason for 
omitting it. A few minutes ago, however, a reason 
was suggested to me as perhaps to be found in the 
opening words of the last verse, 

" Here, in Thy house, let incense rise." 

that may account for the omission of that. 
[Laughter.] 

Reference has been made to the one living writer 
of hymns in our Church — Dr. Muhlenburg. I am 



■ sorry that v;e Iiave not more of t;ie i')rod\i(!tions of 
his poetic spirit ;, for instance, one like this : 

! " Si)ice o"er fchy footstool here belov.r 

I Such radiant gems are strewn, 

I O M^iat magnificence must glow. 

My God, above Thy throne ! 
So brilliant here these drops of light : 
There the full ocean rolls how bright ! 

" If night's blue curtain of the sky. 
With a thousand stars inwrought, 
Hang like a royal canopy 
With glittering diamonds fraught, 
Be, Lord, Thy temple's outer veil, 
TVliat splendor at the shrine must dwell 

" The dazzling sun at noontide hour. 
Forth from his flaming vase 
: Flinging o'er earth the golden shower 

I Till vale a,nd mountain blaze, 

j But shows, O Lord, are beams of Thine- 
j What then the day where Thou dost shin 

'■ Oh! how shall these dim eyes endure 

That noon of living ray's. 
Or how my spirit so impure 

LTpon Thy brightness gaze ? 
Anoint, O Lord, anoint my sight. 
And robe me for that world of light." 

I submit, if any alterations, amendments, or addi- 
tions are to be niade, a hjami hke this might profit- 
{ ably be introduced, and"so, too, the one to which I 
I have just referred. I am, however, in the main 
satisfied with the work of the Committee. I would 
; be glad if we could come to an end of this question. 

I am thankful to them for what they have done, but 
; so far as the arrangement of the Gloria Patrias is 
i concerned, I submit it is almost a necessity that that 
part of the work should be improved. 

Rev. Mr. JOHNSON, of Connecticut. Mr. Presi- 
I dent and gentlemen of the Convention, I am de- 
: cidedly opposed to accepting this revised Hymnal 
; as a finality, and 1 am equally opposed to accepting 
it temporarily. While we thank and honor the Com- 
i mittee on the Hjrmnal for their labor. I feel that 
\ this House is not yet in a condition to accept as a 
I finality what shall be for f utui'e years the Hymnal of 
; this Chm'ch. 

I I have gone over the revised Hynnnal verj- careful- 
ly and very thoroughly, but because I have made up 
j my mind that the temper of this House is against re- 
: ceiving criticisms upon the work of the Committee, 
: I shall confine m3^self to one criticism only, and al- 
! low me to say it is a criticism far more serious, far 
more important than any of those that were alluded 
to by the Reverend Deputy from Massachusetts 
(Rev, Dr. Vinton). I call attention to one of the 
hymns newly added, namely, the 526th. It is a 
; hymn upon death, and the second stanza reads thus : 

" O Prince of Life ! I know 
! That when I too lie low, 

I Thou wilt at last my soul from death awaken." 

' Now, gentlemen, if that last line means anything, 
I it means, to rny mind, that the souls of men after 
I death are in a state of unconscious sleep. I am not 
I aware that there are men in this Church who be- 
! lieve and who teach that there is no future immor- 
! tality of the soul, and who believe that the souls 
; of the wicked at death do pass into a state of 
unconscious sleep ; but mark, this is a hj^mn about 
• to be appointed to be sung by Christian men ; men 
who have professed their belief in the immoitality 
of the soul ; and, therefore, I say this one criticism 
of itself should, it seems to me, prevent this Con- 
vention from accepting this revised Hymnal as a 
, finality. I am equally opposed to accepting it 



266 



fts a temporai'y expedient. It is unwise, it is unsafe 
for us to be accepting these temporary expedients, 
making changes Convention after Convention, mod- 
elling, changing, whittling, working over our hymns 
time after tima, tmtil in the end there will be such 
a confusion in the minds of worshippers that they 
vvill not know what the hymn I'eally means. 

Suppose this revised edition is accepted tempo- 
mrily for three years longer. I shall have in my 
congregationtwent3"-five, thirty, or fifty worshippers 
vv'ho v/ill wish to procure a new Hymn Book, 
aiid they will very naturally purchase the 
i-evised edition, and I shall have one 
part of my congregation singing a Hymn 
this way and another part singing the same 
hymn another way. There will be, let me tell you, 
more confusion in our churches than there was in 
the Church of Corinth, to which St. Paul alludes 
when he complains of one singing one song and an- 
other singing- another, of one speaking in one voice 
and another in another. 

I do beg you, gentlemen of the Convention, to 
hesitate before you accept this Hymnal as a finality, 
and also before you accept this revised edition which 
has been brought before this House. My humble 
opinion is, and I express it with all deference, that 
it would be far better for us to keep the Hymnal 
that was reported to the last General Convention, 
defective as it is ; and let the Hymnal Committee 
continue, or a,ppoint another, so that in the end, 
when the Church is ready to accept the Hymnal 
that it needs, and that is worthy of the Church, we 
shall have one that each and every member of this 
Convention, or of the Conventions that are to follow, 
can use without hesitation, and without any fear 
whatever. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I rise for the 
pui-pose of oiTering a resolution, and I will simply 
supplement the resolution with one remark. I have 
come to the conclusion that it is 

" Better to bear the ills we have, 
Than fly to others we know not of." 

I am therefore contented for another three years 
to adhere to that which we have. I would wish, 
however, that a Committee — a new Committee, of 
course, the old Committee is now discharged — 
should be appointed to take into consideration the 
whole subject of the Hymnal and report to us at the 
next General Convention. The House may not be will- 
ing then to accept it, but it is far better to take the 
five himdred and fr^'enty hymns we now have, and 
which are widely spread in our congregations, than 
to adopt this little revision concerning which we 
have heard so much said. It is really a mountain 
in labor bringing forth a mouse. I rise, therefore, 
for the purpose of offering the following resolutions 
as a substitute for what is before the House : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the Hymnal as now in use be continued with- 
out alteration until the next General Convention. 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That a Joint Committee, consisting of three Bishops, 
three Presbyters, and three laymen, be appointed 
to consider the subject of the Hymnal, and to report 
to the next General Convention." 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The criticism 
that has been made upon the hymns, it seems to me, 
must be a very critical one, and at the same time I 
am very glad it is made with so much earnestness 
by my brother, because it simply shows the charac- 
ter of the criticism to which the Hymnal has sub- 
jected, 

" O Prince of Life ! I know 
That when I too lie low. 
Thou wilt at last my soul from death awaken." 

He objects, it appears, to the doctrine as to the 



: immortality of the soul, not remembering our Sa- 
! viour said, " Our friend Lazareth sleepeth." They 
j are not all asleep. The word " sleep," rest, a state 
J and condition of the departed, certainly is so far 
'• recognized in the New Testament that a poet may 
, use it in a hymn, and people not very critical may 

sing it without disturbance of mind. 
Rev. Mr. MARPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. 

Let me suggest to the gentleman that the 190th 
^ hymn in the Prayer-Book is open to the same ob- 
I jection: 

''And man, when in the grave, 

Can never quit its gloom. 
Lentil th' eternal morn shall vv ake 
The slumber of the tomb." 

I The Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Of course, 
I but that was not very bad in the Prayer-Book. 
j Rev. Mr. JOHNSON, of Connecticut. I caU at- 
tention to the fact that in the 526th hymn it is the 
; soul that sleeps ; in Lazaras it was the body that 
j slept. 

! Rev. Dr. HALL, of Connecticut. Oh, very well. 
I In the last Convention, on the 9th day, the Hymnal 
Committee were continued to secure accuracy and 
i literary completeness. I want simply to make this 
I point, that the gentleman from Georgia mistook 
I my word "mistake." I referred to minor matters. 
I I do not know whether the minor matters were all 
i mistakes or not, the others were. But there was 
! "literarj^ completeness," and the Committee cer- 
j tainly understood that they were entrusted with 
i that task. 

! The point in regard to the motion of the gentle- 
I man from Massachusetts, that I would make, re- 
spectfully, is this : According to the amendment 
that he offers to us, the Hymnal is to be bound up 
; with the Praver-Book. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. It 
, " may " be boimd with it. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. It may be 
, bound up with the Prayer-Book. Does not that de- 
stroy at once the adjustment with the publishei-s 
concerning the royalty on the Hymnal ? Can any 
I one in his own mind guess exactly how that is 
; affected ? This certainly is a matter very solemnly 
and seriously to be considered, and therefore we are 
I not prepared to act upon that. I admire very many 
j of the points of the amendment of the gentleman 
! from Massachusetts, and they have been very wisely 
and carefully planned ; but we are not prepared for 
: this, nor shall we be, I think, at another Conven- 
tion. 

I It seems to me the objection to the substitute of 
I my friend from Connecticut is very plain. After 
I three years of the trial to which this Hymnal has 
i been exposed, after these revisions that have been 
j considered as acceptable very largely, and have been 
! received from a vast number of writers— I am told 
I that the correspondence is almost infinite on the 
j subject ; there certainly have been very many com- 
I munications in the papers — if these re- 
j visions are completed, we had better take 
j them now ; otherwise this thing may again occur. 
I In the last few months, the last quartei-, 
I the receipts on the royalty have fallen off fearfully, 
i Why ^ Because there was a doubt in the minds of 
I our people imdermining the whole thing, and the 
Church is afraid t o buy the Hymnal. Now you 
I have a revision presented to you to-day which can 
I be brought in place for less than $100, and it will not 
1 disturb congregations so fearfully. There are very 
j few points where a congregation in singing these 
j hymns would be very much disturbed. I do not think 
i any congregation will find fault with a choir or 
! rector for any disturbance that may occur. It seems 
i to me if we have this revision we have a security 
! against that danger in the last yea.r before the next 



267 



Convention when the same thing will come up prob- 
ably again and the royalty will be again diminished ; 
and I remind gentlemen that the royalty is a most 
precious charity ; that it is carrying comfort to the 
broken-down clergymen that this Church has no other 
way to reach. It is a comfort to him as he lays his 
head on his last pillow to remember that there is 
some little pittance provided by his brethren for 
those near and dear to him. It seems to me worthy 
the cause that we should guard this revision against 
that danger from again occurring in the last year 
preceding the next Convention. 

In order to put the whole thing before the mind 
of the Convention, allow me to read my resolutions. 
In the first place, we move to discharge the Com- 
mittee. To that, of course, I presume there is no 
objection. They discharge themselves. They do not 
belong here and we cannot do anything with them. 
Then, 

"Resolved, That this House concur in 
Message No. 32 of the House of Bishops." 

Which is a resolution appointing this Hymnal to 
be used, not all Hymnals, not Plymouth Church, or 
anything else. Then this is an expression of the 
opinion of th^'s House that this does not prevent 
gentlemen from offering matters of reconsidera- 
tion in another Convention, and, above all, remem- 
ber that it merely leaves the revised Hymnal for 
the next Convention to consider exactly as any 
other question. And then comes the next resolu- 
tion : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the Hymnal now revised and adopted is free 
to be printed and published by all responsible pub- 
lishers who shall obtain a license to that effect from 
the Trustees of the Fund for the relief of widows 
and orphans of deceased clergy, and of 
aged and infirm and disabled clergymen, and 
who shall assume to such trustees a 
payment to be applied for the uses of said 
fund equivalent to ten per cent, upon the retail 
selling price ; and that the copyright of the revised 
Hymnal shall vest in said Trustees, subject to the 
further order of this Convention. 

"Also, that the Trustees be authorized 
to superintend the revision and publication 
of the revised editions of the Hymnal, with power 
to make the typographical and literary changes 
necessary to conform it to the committee's report 
made to this Convention." 

Which, of course, as I am standing here for them, 
means these corrections that have been offered upon 
sheets. 

It seems to me that that leaves the Hymnal on 
better ground than the resolution of my friend from 
Connecticut, because it staves off the possibility of 
the diminishing of the sale of the Hymnal and doubt 
being infused into the mind of the Church in the 
year before the next General Convention. 

The objection I make to the resolution of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts is that we cannot at 
this moment arrange, as we stand ready to take 
the question, exactly how this Hymnal is to be 
bound up with the Prayer-Book, and see that the 
rights of those who have purchased the copyright 
have been preserved. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I would 
like to ask a question. 

The PRESIDENT. The time has come to take the 
vote. 

Rev. Dr. MINNIGERODE, of Virginia. I would 
like to understand whether we are to vote for this 
Hymnal now as a finality, or whether it is put off 
until the next General Convention ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The first reso- 
lution is to discharge the Committee ; the second is 
to concur with the House of Bishops. The third 
resolution is that this is not a finality, but it shall be 



the Hymnal of the Church. The fourth is to commib 
the matter of royalty to the Trustees. 

Rev. Dr. MINNIGERODE, of Virginia. If it is 
not a finality, but merely a revision of the former 
Hymnal, I can vote for it. 

The PRESIDENT. As I tmderstand the matter, 
the motion is first to discharge the Conmiittee of 
this House from the further consideration of the 
subject, and there is only one member of the Com- 
mittee left here. The next motion is to agree with 
the message of the House of Bishops with sundry 
amendments. These amendments, offered by 
Dr. Hall, come in as an amendment to the message 
from the House of Bishops. Then the proposition 
of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Rev. Dr. 
Huntington) is an amendment to that amendment, 
and, finally, the resolution offered by Dr. Mead, 
of Connecticut, is a substitute for the whole. The 
question is first on the substitute proposed by Di-. 
Mead. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I ask 
for a separation of his resolution. 

The PRESIDENT. That will be done, as a mat- 
ter of course. The question is on the fii'st resolu- 
tion of Dr. Mead, which is— 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring^ 
That the Hynrnal, as now in use, be continued with- 
out alteration until the next General Convention." 

The resolution was not agreed to, there being, on 
a division, ayes 90, noes 102. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Of course the 
second resolution is considered as withdrawn ? 

The PRESIDENT. Upon the second it is nob 
necessary to put the question. 

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia. I offer a sub- 
stitute for the matter before us ; 

"Resolved, That the Hymnal be published in ac- 
cordance with resolutions on page 153 of the Journal 
of 1871, to be carried out by a Special Committee of 
two, one clergyman and one layman." 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the sub- 
stitute just offered. 

The substitute was not agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on thj 
resolutions offered by the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts (Rev, Dr. Huntington) by way of amend- 
ment. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virgmia. I would ac- 
cept that proposition with a single amendment, to 
omit the words "and bound up with the Book of 
Common Prayer." That would remove one se- 
rious objection. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. I 
will ask the Secretary to strike out those words. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I ask the 
mover if he will admit another amendment, to add 
after the words "1832" the words "and 1805," 
so as to include the Additional Hymns. 

Rev. Dr. PIUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. No, 
sir. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I ask permis- 
sion to suggest an amendment which I think will be 
accepted by the gentleman. It is after the clause 
which provides that the Hymnal shall be put into 
possession of the trustees of that charitable society, 
to add, "subject to the further order of this Con- 
vention." 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. I ac- 
cept the amendment of the Deputy from New- 
York. 

Rev. Dr. ELLIOTT, of South Carolina. I would 
like to ask a question with regard to the word 
"finality." That is a point that I think will detennine 
a good many votes. I should like to know whether 
it is to be considered a finality. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. It 
is only a finality so far as any Convention can make 
it so. If I may be allowed, I will accept the amenl. 



268 



ment of my colleague from Massaehiisotis (Rev, Dr. 
Burgess), which incliidos the hyuuis authorized in 
1 S<>5, the Additional Hyiims so-called. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I would 
like to call attention to the fact, for the information 
of the House, that this i-esolution has done all that 
it is possible to do to give a character of finality to 
the present revised Hvmnal. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. Yes, 
sir. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would like to 
call attention to another po hit, that the "Hymns 
Ancient and Modem " may fairly be claimed to 
come in also on the list, and therefore your Hymnal 
would amount to nothing. If you commence letting 
these things in vou have lost j^bur entire work. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. I 
would say to the gentleman from Long Island, that 
I have not been permitted by the House to make 
that amendment letting in the Additional Hymns. 
I asked for permission, and I now withdraw the 
I'equest. I ask the Secretary to read the resolution 
as amended by those amendments I have accepted. 

The SECRETARY. It is as follows : 

'• Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That in place of the certificate and attestation prmt- 
ed on the third page of the revised edition of the 
Hynmal, the folio wmg authentication, duly certi- 
fied by the proper officers, be substituted, viz. : ' By 
the Bishops, the clergy, and the laity of the Pro- 
testant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America in General Convention, in the year of our 
Lord 1874, this Revised Hymnal is set forth and al- 
lowed to be used in all congregations of the said 
Church.'" 

— leaving out the words "and to be bound with the 
Book of Common Prayer. " 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of Connecticut. There is per- 
fect confusion in this House, and I move that the 
amendment be laid on the table that we may come 
at once to the report of the Committee. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. Is 
not that out of order, Mr. President ? 

The PRESIDENT. The reading cannot be stopped, 
and the Secretary will proceed. 

The SECRETARY continued the reading as fol- 
lows : 

"This Hymnal, as now revised, is free to be 
printed and published by all responsible publishei's 
who shall obtain a license to that effect from the 
Tmstees of the Fimd for the Relief of Widows and 
Orphans of Deceased Clergymen, and of aged, infirm, 
and disabled Clergymen, who shall assure to such 
trustees a payment, to be applied to the uses of said 
fund, equivalent to ten per cent, upon the retail 
selling price, and that the copyright of the 
Hymnal shall vest in the said Trustees, subject to 
the finther oi-der of the General Convention. 
No hymns other than those contained in this Hymnal 
may la\^^ull3^ be used in the public worship of this 
Church, save that it shall be lawful to use the Selec- 
tions and Psalms in metre, or hjmms set forth in 
1832, as well as the Hymnal set forth in 1871, until 
order to the contrary shall have been taken by the 
General Convention." 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. If that is put on, 
v/hat is to be done with the hymns in the Prayer- 
Book now? 

The PRESIDENT. I do not know, sir. 

The SECRETARY continued the reading of the 
amendment, as follows: 

" But note that anthems in the words of the Holy 
Scripture or in the Book of Common Prayer may 
at any time be used instead of hymns. 

"Resolved, That to the sentence on the fourth 
page of the revised Hymnal be appended the words, 
*" From the joint resolution of the General Conven- 
tion o-f 1833.' " 



Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I suggest 
that the House is not in a state to vote intelligently 
upon this question, and that the matter be postpon- 
ed until after the recess. [" No, No ! "] 

' Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I move 
to lay the amendment or substitute of the Deputy 
from Massachusetts on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. The question has been or- 
dered, and that motion is only made to stop debate. 

I It is only another mode of disposing of the subject, 
which would be disposed of just as effectively by 
taking the vote directly upon the main proposition. 
Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Very 

; well; 1 withdraw my motion. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I would ask— and 1 

: know I ask what the House want to know — that 
some gentleman will call attention to the essential 

! differences between the propositions now pending, 

' before the vote is taken. 

The PRESIDENT. I think it is generally under- 

: stood. The question is on the amendment of Rev. 

I Dr. Huntington. 

' The amendment was rejected. 

! The PRESIDENT. The question now recurs upon 
the amendment proposed by Dr. Hall to the message 
from the House of Bishops. 

! Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The Clerical 

I Deputation from the Diocese of Connecticut call 

^ for a vote by dioceses and orders. ["No, no !"] 

' That will take time. 

The PRESIDENT. The hour for recess has al- 
ready passed, and it will now be taken. 

The Convention thereupon took a recess for half 
an hour, and reassembled at tv/o p.m., when the 
President resumed the Chair. 

: COURT OF APPEALS. 

I Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island, submitted the 
; following reports, which v/ere placed on the cal- 
endar: 

" The Committee on Amendments to the Constitu- 
tion to which was referred the message of the 
I House of Bishops No. 83, and several resolutions 
; upon the subject of an Amendment to the Constitu- 
i tiou to empower the General Convention to create a 
■ Court of Appeals, respectfully report that they have 
I considered the subject, and while there was some 
I difference of opinion, a decided majority deemed it 
I inexpedient to make such amendment. Your Com- 
I mittee therefore recommend the adoption of the 
: following resolutions : 

" Resolved, That it is not expedient to amend the 
I Constitution so as to authorize the General Conven- 
I tion to establish a Com-t of Appeals. 

" Resolved, That this House does not concur in the 
i resolution of the House of Bishops in Message 
i No. 33." 

I PARTS OF DIOCESES TO BE MISSIONARY DISTRICTS. 

" The Committee on the Constitutional Amend- 
! ments, to whom v.'as referred a resolution regard- 
i ing Article V., hereby repectfuUy present the fol- 
i lowing resolution: 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
I That it be recommended and proposed that the f oi- 
; lowing addition be made to Article V., of the Con- 
I stitution, to wit : Insert at the end of the Article 
I the words, ' The General Convention may, upon the 
j application of the Bishop and Convention of an or- 
ganized Diocese, setting forth that the territory of 
the Diocese is too large for due Episcopal supervi- 
sion by the Bishop of the Diocese, set off a portion 
of such Diocesan territory, which shall, thereupon, 
i be placed within or constitute a missionary jurisdic- 
1 tion, or a part thereof, as the House of Bishops may 
determine.'" 

] SUPPLEMENTAL DEPUTIES. 

1 "The Committee on Constitutional A.mendments 



2C0 



to whoixi was referred, by resolution of the House, 
the enquiry whether Supplementary Deputies can 
be entitled'to seats in this House without an amend- 
ment of the Constitution, respectf uly report : 

'■1, That by the terms of the Constitution this 
House is composed of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
from the several Dioceses to be chosen in the manner 
]irescribed by the Conventions thereof. The Diocese, 
therefore, is the only authority which can confer the 
right to be a member. This House itself has no such 
authority. The so-called Deputies from Missionary 
Districts admitted to seats on the floor are not mem- 
bers in any constitutional sense. 

'•rl The^ office of Deputy, chosen by a Diocese, is 
a pereonal trust, incapable of delegation by him to 
;uiofiher person unless he is authorized by the Con- 
veation of his Diocese to appoint his substitute. Nor 
can all the Deputies from a Diocese make such sub- 
stitution in the absence of such authority, 

••3. But the Convention of a Diocese, without 
change of Constitution, may choose alternate Depu- 
ties, or provide for substitution, or the filliag of such 
vacancies in such manner as it deems proper. Any 
l^i-son claiming a seat in this House as a Deputy, 
with all the rights of membership, must have been 
chosen by the Diocesan Convention, or if he claims 
to fill a vacancy, he must derive and show his title 
under and through the action of such Diocesan Con- 
vention. 

"The Committee ask to be discharged from the 
further consideration of the subject. " 

SHORTENED FORJIS OF PRAYER. 

■'The Committee on Amendments to the Constitu- 
tion, to whom was referred a resolution asking a re- 
port upon the expediency of proposing an amend- 
ment to Article VIII. of the Constitution, have had 
the same under consideration, and respectfully re- 
port the following resolution : 

'•Kesolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the following be proposed and made known to 
the several Dioceses as an Amendment to Article 
VIII. of the Constitution, to be added at the end of 
the Article as it now stands, to wit, the words, 
' Provided that the General Convention may, by 
Canon, arrange and set forth a shortened form of 
Morning and Evening Prayer, to be compiled 
wholly from the Book of Common Prayer ; or may 
authorize the same to be done by any Diocese for its 
own use.' " 

AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION. 

" The Committee on Constitutional Amendments, 
to whom were referred certain memorials and reso- 
lutions, with other accompanying documents, di- 
recting them to enquire into the expediency of in- 
stituting a commission to revise the Constitution of 
this Church, have had the same under considera- 
tion, and would beg leave to submit the following 
report : 

" ' The Constitution of the Chm-ch was adopted in 
1789, and the long period which has elapsed with 
comparatively so few and, for the most part, so un- 
important amendments, strongly attests the wisdom 
and foresight of its founders, 

"The powers of the General Convention have never 
been defined in that insti-ument. It would be a diffi- 
cult task were it deemed a desirable one to define 
them by any witten constitution. Under its pres- 
ent organic law, the Protestant Episcopal Church 
has increased, prospered, and become, under God's 
providence, a powerful organization and agency in 
the conversion of human souls. Alterations and 
amendments in the Constitution should never be 
proposed, except when shown to be demanded by 
the best interests of the Church, and not then till 
after full and mature deliberation. When such 



exigencies .shall arise, in the future, as in the past, 
yom- Committee are so persuaded any change can 
always be n:ore safely and v/isely done by si3ecific 
amendments, than by committing the whole instru- 
ment for a revision to any commission. 
Your Committee believe that the specific 
amendment can be more fully discharged 
upon the floor of this House when its precise opera- 
tion and intendment may be examined and modi- 
fied, and where an enlightened, wise judgment 
upon the necessity of the proposed change can be 
more certainly reached. Whenever the necessities 
or wants of the Church are found in such antagonism 
with existing provisions and limitations of our 
fundamental law, the General Convention will soon 
become convinced of that fact by proposed amend- 
ments from the various dioceses in which a change 
is asked. 

"It woifld be unwise to anticipate such changes or 
amendments in the Constitution until such a neces- 
sity is clearly manifest, 

"Your Committee, therefore, recommend the 
adoption of the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That it is inexpedient at this time to 
institute any commission to revise and amend the 
Constitution of the Chm'ch, 

"The Committee on Constitutional Amendments, 
to whom was referred a resolution of the House 
directing said Committee to enquire whether there 
is anything that conflicts with the independence of 
the different Dioceses, or with the spirit of the Con- 
stitution of the Church, in a proposition requiring 
that in the trial of a minister for holding or teach- 
ing, publicly or privately, any doctrine contrary to 
that held by the Church, the consent or 
approval of two-thirds of the number 
of persons constituting the court of trial 
shall be necessary to a conviction, have had the 
same under consideration, and beg leave to report : 
The Constitution of the Church prescribes that the 
mode of trying Bishops shall be provided by the 
General Convention, The Court appointed for that 
purpose shaU be composed of Bishops only. In 
every Diocese the mode of trying Presbyters and 
Deacons may be instituted by the Convention of that 
Diocese (Article VI. of the Constitution). 

"The General Convention are empowered by this 
grant to prescribe the mode and manner of the trial 
of a Bishop by a Com-t of Bishops. Accordingly, 
the Canon prescribing the trial of Bishops 
directs that, at every presentment of a Bishop 
for alleged erroneous doctrines, the Court shall be 
composed of all the Bishops entitled to seats in 
the House of Bishops, except the accuser and the 
accused. Three-fourths of such Bishops shall con- 
stitute a quorum, but the consent of two-thirds of 
all the Bishops entitled to seats in the House of 
Bishops shall be necessaiy to a conviction, (Can, 9, 
Tit. II,, Sec, 7,) But it will be perceived that in the 
case of the trial of a Presbyter or Deacon for teach- 
ing erreoneous or false doctrine, or for any other of- 
fence, the case is wholly different. 

"The General Convention has no jurisdiction 
whatever in the latter case. The Constitution has 
expressly committed the trial of Presbyters and 
Deacons"^ for any and all offences to the exclu- 
sive jurisdiction of the separate Dioceses. They are 
clothed with full and exclusive power of prescribing 
the court and the manner and the mode of the trial 
of Presbyters and Deacons, and there is no limita,- 
tion in the Constitution upon the power of any 
Dioceses, in determining what number of the per- 
sons constituting the Court shall be necessary for 
the conviction of a Presbji^er or a Deacon. 

" Wherefore, yoiu' Committee submit a negative 
response to the enquiry contained in the resolution, 
and recommend the passage of the following reso- 
lution : 



270 



"Resolved, That ilie Committee be discharged 
from the further consideration of the subject. 
All of which is respectfully submitted. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE ON CANONS. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia, submitted the fol- 
lowing reports, which were placed on the Calen- 
dar : 

''The Committee on Canons, to whom was i^e- 
ferred a proposed amendment to Section 6, of 
Canon 12, Title I., relating to the officiating of Min- 
isters within the cures of others, respectfully report 
that they have considered the same, and are of the 
opinion that the proposed amendment is inexpe- 
dient. They therefore recommend the adoption of 
the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
amendment to Section 6, of Canon 12, Title I. 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
a resolution relating to the title of this House, re- 
spectfullj^ report that they have considered the 
same, and recommend its adoption as follows : 

" Resolved, (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the 
House of Deputies, in making up the proceedings of 
this session of the General Convention for publica- 
tion in the Journal of 1874, to strike out the words 
' House of Clerical and Lay Deputies ' wherever they 
occur, and insert instead thereof the words ' House 
of Deputies.' " 

" The Connnittee on Canons, to whom was referred 
a resolution proposing certain amendments of the 
Canons on the subject of the organization of Stand- 
ing Committees, have considered the same, and re- 
commend the adoption of the following resolution: 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That Section 1, of Canon 2, of Title III. , be amend- 
ed so as to read as follows: 

"Section 1. In every Diocese there shall be a 
Standing Committee, composed of an equal number 
of Presbyters and laymen, communicants of the 
Church, to be appointed by the Convention thereof, 
whose duties, except so far as provided for by the 
Canons of the General Convention, may be pre- 
scribed by the Canons of the respective Dioceses. 
They shall elect from their own body a president 
and a secretarj^. They may meet on their own ad- 
journment from time to time; and the president 
shall have power to summon special meetings 
whenever he shall deem it necessary. 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom were re 
f erred two proposed amendments to Canon 7, Title 
II., 'Of a Clergyman absenting himself from his 
Diocese,' respectfully report that they have con- 
sidered the same, and are of the opinion that the 
proposed amendments are inexpedient. They there- 
fore recommend the adoption of the following reso- 
lution: 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be dis- 
charged from the consideration of the proposed 
amendments to Canon 7, Title II., 'Of a ClergjTiian 
absenting himself from his Diocese. ' 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom it was re- 
ferred to consider and report as to what rules, if 
any, should be adopted to regulate the procedure of 
this House in its action upon the testimonials of 
Bishops-elect, especially in regard to the time and 
manner in which charges or objections shall be re- 
ceived or entertained, the kind and nature of the 
evidence which should be admitted in regard to 
such charges or objections, and, finally, any such 
rules and regulations as in their judgment would 
tend to secure a just, fair, and orderly examination 
of the matter to be determined upon by this House, 
respectfully report that, on account of the magni- 
tude and importance of the subject, they recom- 
mend that it be referred to a Special Committee to 



sit during the recess, as provided for in the follow- 
ing resolution : 

"Resolved, That the subject of the procedure in 
this House in its action upon the testimonials of Bi- 
shops-elect, be referred to a Special Committee of 
five, to consider and report to the next General Con- 
I vention. 

I ' 'The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
! a resolution of enquiry as to the expediency of Ca- 
I nonical legislation as to the pastoral charge of 
chapels in Theological Seminaries, etc., respectfully 
report that they have considered l3he same, and are 
of the opinion that no such action would be expedi- 
i ent. 

I " They therefore recommend the adoption of the 
I following resolution : 

} "Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
I discharged from the consideration of the subject of 
I the Pastoral Charge of Chapels in Theological Semi- 
naries, etc." 

I SANTEE INDIAN RESERVATIONS. 

i Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virguaia, submitted the fol- 
1 lowing report, which was read : 
i "The Committee on Canons, to whom was re- 
i ferred Message No. 31 from the House of Bishops, 
' proposing Preambles and a joint Resolution relating 
i to the Santee Indian Reservation, respectfully re- 
1 port that they have considered the same, and recom- 
i mend the adoption of the following resolution : 
i "Resolved, That this House concur with the 
j House of Bishops in the preambles and resolution 
i communicated to this House in Message No. 31 
1 from the House of Bishops and relating to the San- 
i tee Indian Reservation." 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. This is in respect 
to the separation of a portion of the territory of 
Nebraska, so as to add it to the Niobrara Missionary 
Jurisdiction, and I am inform.ed that the House of 
Bishops desire action on this subject by us now. I 
move, therefore, to take up this message out of its 
order on the Calendar for the purpose of acting on 
it at this time. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will put the ques- 
tion on that motion. 

The motion was agreed to, and the House pro- 
ceeded to consider the resolution reported by the 
Committee on Canons. 
The resolution was adopted. 

MESSAGES FROM THE BISHOPS. 

A message (No. 54) from the House of Bishops 
announced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

" Resolved, That the House of Bishops hereby in- 
forms the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies that 
it has appointed as members of the Standing Com- 
mittee on Foreign Churches, Rev. WiUiam F. Mor- 
gan, D.D., Rev. Robert S. Howland, d.d., Mr. Ham- 
ilton Fish, LL.D., and Mr. L. P. Morton." 

A message (No. 55) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

"Resolved, That this House concurs in Message 
No. 45 from the House of Deputies constituting a 
joint committee to arrange a time for the final ad- 
journment of this Convention, and appoints on the 
part of this House the Standing Committee on the 
Despatch of Business, viz. , the Assistant Bishop of 
Maryland, the Missionary Bishop of Nevada, and 
the Assistant Bishop of North Carolina. " 

VOTE UPON RITUAL CANON. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. Not 
having been in the House yesterday when the vot3 
was taken upon the Canon on Ritual, I desire per- 
mission to record my vote in its favor. 

The PRESIDENT. Leave to record votes on that 



question has already teen granted to all who were 
abte it yesterday. The gentleman I'rom Central New 
York will go to the Secretary and have his name re- 
corded. That leave, ho we Wr, applies only to cas3s ; 
where the recording of the vote now makes no dif- \ 
ference in the result as to any Diocese. The Chair j 
will state that one gentleman " from Michigan asks j 
leave to record his vote, and that recording that vote i 
would change the result as to that Diocese, not the j 
general residt. The Diocese is now recorded as vot- | 
ing in the negative, and if the vote now referred to ; 
is received, the Diocese will be divided. { 

Mr. BALDATIjS", of Michigan. I suppose the 
Chair means the clerical vote of that Diocese ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir; the Chair wiU put 
the question to the House whether the gentleman 
referred to (Rev. Mr. Earp) shall be allowed to re- ] 
cord his vote. j 

The Chair put the question, and declared that he : 
could not determine the result of the voices. j 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I suggest that that i 
cannot be allowed without general consent. i 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair, on reflection, i 
thinks the gentleman from Marj^land is correct, and ! 
therefore will not put the question, as there seems 
to be objection. 

THE HYMNAL. 

Several DEPUTIES called fo the regular order. : 

The PRESIDENT. The regular order is the mat- \ 
ter of the Hymnal, which is now before the House. ; 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The Diocese of ' 
Connecticut withdraws the call for a vote by Dio- 
ceses and orders, on the motion of the gentleman \ 
from Long Island. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop- ! 
tion of the amendment proposed by Dr. Hall, to the [ 
message from the House of Bishops. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I ask the Sscre- I 
tary to read in a clear voice — fii-sfc, the resolution to 
discharge the Committee ; second, the message from 
the House of Bishops, which is the positive part of | 
the whole matter ; and third, the resolution that the 
Hymnal is not a' finality ; and finally, the resolution 
giving it over to the Trustees. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I would ask the 
Secretary to read the message of the House of Bish- 
ops as it would stand if the proposition of the Rev. 
Dr. HaU be accepted by this House as an amend- 
ment to that. 

The SECRETARY. The fii'st resolution is that 
the Committee be discharged. The second resolu- 
tion is — 

' ' Resolved, That this House concur in Message 
No. 32 of the House of Bishops." 

The third resolution contemplates an addition to 
that message, so that when concurred in as pro- 
posed to be amended, the resolution of the House of 
Bishops will read as follows : 

" Resolved, That future editions of the Hymnal 
shall be printed so as to conform to the revised 
edition presented by the Joint Committee on the 
Hymnal : and that no other hjmmsbe allowed in the 
pubhc worship of the Church, except the Hymnal, 
as thas revised, and such hymns and psalms as are 
now ordinarily bound up with the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer. Provided, that any congregation may 
continue the use of editions of the Hymnal hereto- 
fore published imtil further action of the Conven- 
tion. 

"Resolved, also. That it is the sense of this Con- 
vention that the revised Hymnal now set forth is 
not regarded as a finality, but that it is authorized 
for the time being, as a *^tentative process and con- 
tribution toward a more perfect and acceptable 
hymnal of the future. 

" Resolved, also. That the Hymnal now revised 
and adopted is free to be printed and published by 



all responsible publishers who shall obtain a license 
to that effect from the Trustees of the fund for the 
relief of widows and orj^hajis of deceased clergymen 
and of aged and infii-m and disabled clergymen, and 
who shall assure to said Trustees a payment to be 
applied for the uses of said fund equivalent to ten 
per cent, upon the retail selling price ; and that 
the copyright of the revised Hymnal shall 
vest m said Trustees, subject to the further order of 
this Convention, and also that the Tnistees be 
authorized to supeiintend the revision and publica- 
tion of the revised editions of the Hymnal, with 
power to make typographical and literary changes 
necessary to conform it to the Committee's report 
made to this Convention." 

Rev. Mr. WARD, of Maine. I move a reconsid- 
eration of the vote on the amendment offered by 
the Rev. Dr. Mead, of Connecticut. I voted against 
it, and now I move to reconsider that vote. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. That being a 
new subject, I suppose it is open to remark ? 

The PRESIDENT. Oh. no ; the House has decided 
to take the vote, and debate is not in order. It is 
now moved to reconsider the vote adverse to the 
amendment proposed by the Rev. Dr. Mead, of 
Connecticut. 
The motion to reconsider was not agreed to. 
Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. I 
desire to ask whether, if we vote down the repoi-t 
of the Connnittee, we shall not have our Hymnal, 
a^ at present in use, remaining for future use mi til 
the next General Convention ? 
The PRESIDENT. I presume so. 
Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. As I under- 
stand the question, it is a choice between an amend- 
ed Hymnal, its mistakes corrected, or the 
Hymna^l that we have had in use, full of mistakes, 
for the last three yeara. I suppose that is the onh* 
question before the House. If we vvdsh to continue 
all the errors of the last three years — 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. That is entii'ely 
on my side of the question, but I was called to order 
for speaking — 

The PRESIDENT. The Deputy from New Jersey 
is debating. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. I beg pardon 
for repeating anything which, probably, has not 
been so well said. [Laughter.] 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. The Hymnal 
of 1871, I think, runs out by limitation. It was per- 
mitted to be used until this Convention, and if we 
do not now adopt this present H^Tunal, we shall have 
none. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I rise to a poiait 
of order. This is debate. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not think the gentleman 
from Louisiana is correct as to the matter of fact 
in regard to the order of 1871. 

Rev. Dr. ELLIOTT, of South Carolina. I do not 
wish to interfere with the proceedings of the House 
at this stage, but I wish to ask whether the question 
suggested in regard to the present Hymnal ninning 
out had not better be settled before we vote. 

The PRESIDENT. I certainly understand that 
it did not run out when I invested considerably in 
the old one. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I understand 
the question is first to be taken on the amendment. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I should 
like to ask one question before I vote, and that is 
I whether under the contracts which have been made 
j by the Trustees with the publishers there will be any 
, opportunity for reclamations on the part of the pub- 
; lishei"s in consequence of the alterations now made 

if we adopt these resolutions. 
I Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I will answer 
i that the last resolution has been drawn up by legal 



gentlemen, who seem, I think, to have covered the 
ground, having had the point presented to them. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Then you 
answer "Ko " ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. There will be 
no reclamations. 

The PRESIDENT. The first resolution is to dis- 
charge the Committee. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The next resolution is that 
the House concur in the Message, No. 33, of the 
House of Bishops, with the amendment which has 
just been read. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. It seems to me 
that the vote should be taken on the message of the 
House of Bishops, as a whole, and then on the 
resolutions proposed by this Committee seriatim. 

Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. 
Does not an affirmative vote on that clause commit 
us to a revision of the present Hymnal ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Oh, no. 

The PRESIDENT. I think the order should be 
the reverse of that proposed by the gentleman from 
South Carolina. The question is on the proposition 
of Dr. HaE, offered as an amendment to the mes- 
sage of the House of Bishops. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. We do not 
understand it. A resolution of concurrence simply 
would put us in a A'^ery awkward condition. The 
vote, I suppose, is to concur v/ith qualifications, 
'i^hen these two resolutions are offered together as 
an amendment, we concur with that qualification. 

Mr. SHEFPBY, of Virginia. The message of the 
House of Bishops is a proposition to this House. It 
comes down precisely for our consideration 
by way of concurrence, or concurrence with 
an amendment, as if it had been a resolu- 
t'on or Canon reported from one of our 
standing committees; and the rule of pro- 
cedure is to take up the Canon or resolution as pro- 
posed by the House of Bishops, and amend it by 
adding to it or striking from it what you choose, 
and the fijaal vote will be upon concurring with the 
House of Bishops in their Canon or resolution as 
amended by this House. It would be very improper 
to concur with the House of Bishops in their propo- 
sition, and then try to amend it. It would be 
too late to amend it after having concurred. We 
must adopt the amendments first, and then the final 
proposition. 

The PRESIDENT. So I considered. The next 
resolution will be read. 
The SECRETARY read : 

" Resolved, also. That it is the sense of this Con- 
vention that the revised Hymnal now set forth is 
not regarded as a finality, but that it is authorized 
for the time being as a tentative process and contri- 
bution toward a more perfect sind acceptable Hym- 
nal of the Church." 

Rev. Dr, FULTON, of Alabama. I know nothing 
about hymnology, but I do not like to see this 
House couch its action in such phraseology, I want 
to know how a Hymnal can be a process. 

The PRESIDENT. Debate is not in order. 

The resolution was adopted. 

The PRESIDENT. The next question is. Will the 
House concur in Message No. 32 of the House of 
Bishops, as thus amended ? 

The message as amended was concurred in. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I have a report 
to make. 

Rev. Mr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Before we go 
to other business, may I not suggest that Dr. Ful- 
ton's correction is a mere verbal correction, which 
we should adopt. A Hymnal is not a "process." 

The PRESIDENT, It is too late now to go back 
to that 



i Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Well, sir, bad 
I English is the curse of this Convention, [Lcsiish- 
! ter.] 

! 

} RELIGIOUS REFORM ABROAD. 

! A message (No. 50) from the House of Bishops an- 
; nounced that it had concurred in Message No. 30 
from the House of Deputies, communicating pre- 
; amble and resolution for a Joint Committee on Ec - 
I clesiastical Relations and Religious Reform, and 
i had appointed as the Joint Coimnittee on the part 
1 of that House the Bishop of Connecticut, the 
I Bishop of Delaware, the Bishop of Long Island, 
I the Bishop of Western New York, and the Bishop 
1 of Central New York. 

1 PLACE OF NEXT MEETING. 

I Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York, submitted the 
I following repcrt : 

I " The Joint Committee upon the place of holding 
: the next General Convention, respectfully report 
S that they have had the matter under consideration, 
I and submit to the Convention for its choice the 
j cities of Boston and Philadelphia, invitations having 
! been extended from the Deputies from the Dioceses 
I of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, 
j "The Committee also report that the Joint Com- 
I mittee recommend that this Convention adjourn ac 
I 5 o'clock Saturday afternoon, and that the House 

of Deputies meet the House of Bishops at half-past 
I seven p.m., to unite in the closing devotional ser- 
I vices, and to listen to the Pastoral Letter. " 
j Mr. WELSH, of Peimsylvania. I move that the 

House immediately proceed to the consideration of 

the question of fixing the place for holding the next 

Convention. 
The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pemisylvania. I move that the 
1 question be first taken on Boston. I know that the 
1 Pennsyiva.nia Delegation will be delighted to see 
i the Convention in Philadelphia ; but the Bostonians 
made so strong an appeal that I cannot help voting 
on the first ballot for Boston. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I second the proposal of 
Boston as the place, 
i Mr, LIVINGSTON, of New York. I observe that 
in the repoit of the Committee no mention is made 
of an invitation from New York. On behalf of the 
deputation of New York, I desire to say that Ne\A- 
York, now and for ever hereafter, desires to receive 
the Convention. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. We thought that 
was understood. 

P^ev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. I do not 
Imow whether any invitation has come from the 
Diocese of Kentucky, or any other Dioceses than 
those mentioned ; but for one I think that the West 
1 ought to have a voice in this matter, and as it is 
! more central than Boston, I will take it upon my- 
! self to nominate to the Convention the city of Louis- 
j ville as the place for the next meeting. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. There were 
I several cities proposed to the Joint Committee by 
j Bishops and Deputies, including Chicago, St. Louis, 
and Detroit ; but the Committee were of the opinion 
I that the cities of Boston and Philadelphia presented 
i the greatest advantages for holding the next session 
i of the General Convention. 

j Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. In refer- 
i ence to the invitation from New York, I think the 
maxim applies, that as any time is no time in par- 
! ticular, so an invitation for all time amounts not to 
an invitation for the next time. Therefore, .1 move 
that New York be ruled out. [Laughter.] 

But, sir, I wish to speak in behalf of the delega- 
tion from Massachusetts, who, I believe, are unani- 
mous in their wishes that the Convention should 
meet there, and inasmuch as it would be a new 



273 



thing in the history of the Church, and inasmuch as 
it is a region in which it is sj^ecially 
desirable that our Church should impress her- 
self in her peculiar characteristics, and in order 
that her influence may be more strong and lasting, I 
think that the friends of the Church at large, if they 
will consider all the bearings of the question, will be 
ready to yield to the claims that Massachusetts 
urges in this behalf now, as the question is first to be 
tried on Boston, I really hope it may go there. But 
I will yield to the Lay Deputy from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Mudge], who, when he sj^eaks, speaks to the 
purpose so far as all the avail abilities are concerned. 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. I wish to 
withdraw my nomination of Louisville. I have no 
right to a personal preference about it. I simply 
want to show that the delegation from Louisiana 
have no objection at all to Boston. It was not any 
objection to Boston that made me nominate Louis- ^ 
viile ; on the contrarj^ we would be glad to go to 
Boston. We honor Boston ; we know that she stood 
up to us at the horn- of our peril. When we 
needed aid and brotherly kindness, Boston 
came f oi-ward with the hand of brotherly love and 
charity, and poui'ed upon us that material aid which 
v/as so necesisary to us when our people were over- 
flowed, and their crops and cattle, and all they had, 
<lestroyed. it v/as not because I opposed Boston, 
])ut because I thought the West, Louisville being 
more central, would be the better place. I withdraw 
it, and most heartily do I concur in the nomination 
of Boston. 

Mr. MUDGrE, of Massachusetts. Mr. President, 
on the pai-t of the Lay Deputies from Massachusetts 
I wish to endorse most heartily what was said by 
the Rev. Dr. Vinton. He spoke for the clergy, and 
he said, as I feel, that it would be a great oc- 
casion for this Convention to impress upon 
the State of Massachusetts, and upon the whole 
of New England, the greatness and the glory 
of our Church, for when this Convention 
meets from every State and Territory and Mission- 
ary district in this land, it has an aspect of great- 
ness and glory such as no other Church in this coun- 
try can present. Feeling this, Mr. President, I hope 
and trust and beg that you will accept our invita- 
tion to come to Boston. We feel that we can offer 
you a better missionary ground for the Church in 
the future than any other part of this country, 
r Applause.] 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. Mr. 
President, there has been but one meeting of this 
body in I^ew England since the foundation of our 
ecclesiastical union, and that was at New Haven, in 
1811, when two Bishops only were present, and the 
Church in this country was just beginning to rise 
from its lowest depths of depression. I am sure we 
should give the Convention a most hearty welcome 
in New Haven again, that old historic place, al- 
though it is the very cradle of Congregationalism. 
But I go for the next best place, if we cannot have 
it in New Haven, and that is Boston. 

Rev. Mr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. Mr. 
President, the city I Kve in is known as the heart of 
Massachusetts. My colleagues have spoken for that 
city which is the head of Massachusetts. I wish 
simply to say that your welcome to Massachusetts 
will come fr om both head and heart. 

Mr. CORNWALL, of Kentucky. Mr. President, 
the characteristic modesty or this delegation has 
imposed on me the duty of inviting the Convention 
to the city of Louisville. With all due diffidence 
we speak on this subject. We have there not quite 
so good accommodations as you have in 
the city of New York, but we think 
you will be welcomed by our people generally. 
If you shall select Louisville you will see a very 
beautiful city, and you will be welcomed by a warm- 



hearted people. You will find them a people not on 
the extreme boundaries of the Union, but ric^ht near 
the centre of it; you will see a most laeautiful coun- 
try ; and you will be welcomed in a very hospitable 
manner; at least we will use every effort to 
make your stay comfortable and pleasant. We have 
churches there that would accommodate this House 
of Deputies quite as well as this church in Avhich we 
sit, and we could accommodate the House of Bishops 
without going to any very great distance. I be- 
lieve I but express the wish of every churchman in 
Kentucky when I say that we should be glad to see 
you in Louisville. If the city of Richmond in l&of, 
with a smaller population, could entertain the Gen- 
eral Convention, I think you may feel confident that 
we can do it to your satisfaction. 
I Rev. Mr. PORTER, of South Carohna. Mr. 
I President, we have no doubt that to whatever city 
t we may go, this Convention will be heartily wel- 
comed : but I beg to move that v/hen this Conven- 
tion adjourns, it adjom^is to meet in Boston. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana, I get up, sir, on bebaif 
of the Delegation from Louisiana, to im^te you to 
hold the next General Convention in the city of 
New Orleans. We promise you a much warmer i^e- 
ception than our friends in Boston can give you : 
but if I camiot get New Orleans, then I shall go. In 
the language of my friend across the way, for the 
next best place, for Boston. [Laughter.] 

Rev. Mr. E ASTON, of Califoraia. I sm in- 
structed by the Delegation from California to ex- 
tend to you an invitation to the city of San Fran- 
cisco, and I have an argument that I think this 
House will listen to. Everybody has expressed a 
desire that this House should be lessened in num- 
bers ; and it is thought that if the Convention 
would sit in San Francisco that end would bo 
reached. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. Mr. President, 
there is one place that has not yet been mentioned, 
and I am authorized to present ft to this Convention. 
It is the city of Minneapolis [Laughter], and I can 
give you an important reason why that city she aid 
be selected. It is on the parallel of forty-five degrees, 
exactly half way between the pole and the equator 
[Laughter] ; it is exactly midway between the Atlan- 
tic and the Pacific Oceans, and as we believe it is yet 
to be the true capital of this country, I think it a 
most appropriate place. Again, last year that city 
v/as the place of the meeting of the American 
Board, and I beg leave to say that we entertained 
two thousand members of that Board without the 
payment of one single cent, and we will extend the 
like invitation to this Convention to meet in Minne- 
apolis. 

Rev. Mr. McILWAIN, of Iowa. Mr. President, 
we have been informed by the last gentleman who 
spoke that where he lives is the centre of the earth. 
I have not lived long, but I have lived long enough 
to leam that where I live is not the centre of the 
earth. We are told the East abounds in generosity, 
and we know the reason why. It has had op- 
portunities to cultivate generosity. Now I speak a 
word for the West. We ask for the opportunity 
to cultivate generosity on our part. We are will- 
ing, however, to yield, ajid yield gracefully to the 
Eas-t ; but we ask you with all our heart to come and 
sit beside the Father of Waters. I therefore propose 
St. Louis. 

The PRESIDENT. Will the Chairman of the 
Committee state the f onri of the resolution ? 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. The Committee 
proposes two names, Boston and Philadelphia. A 
motion has since been made that Boston be voted 
on first. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I move to striko 
out the word "'Philadelphia," so as to leave Boston. 



21A 



Rev. Dr. CADY, of Now York. We do not offer \ 
any resolution. i 

the PRESIDENT. The motion is that the next | 
Cr.ineral Convention m3eL in the city of Boston. 

The motion was agreed to. [ 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that the 1 
vote just taken be communicated to the House of | 
Bishops at once. I 

The motion was agreed to. j 

TIME OF FINAL ADJOURNMENT. \ 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I now ask for i 
action on the other matter reported by the Commit- \ 
te3. j 
The Secretary read the following resolution: 
" Resolved, That the Convention adjourn at five 1 
o'clock on Saturday afternoon, and that the House [ 
of Deputies meet the House of Bishops at 7 :30 p.m., 1 
to unite in the closing devotional services, and to j 
listen to the Pastoral letter." j 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. I move 
as an amendment Friday afternoon. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. The clergy 
have expected to have this Church as usual on 
Saturday afternoon at three o'clock. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. It is not pro- 
posed to hold the evening session here. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I move to 
amend the resolution by striking out "five" o'clock 
and inserting "three." Before the question is put, 
I ask the consent of the House to make one or two 
remarks, very brief and yet impoi tant. 

The Deputies from New York, upon whom de- 
volved the duty of allotting seats for the represen- 
tatives of the Dioceses, found this difficulty, that 
by the constitution every Diocese was en- 
titled to eight seats, and we were obliged to allot 
eight seats to every Diocese, although we were con- 
rscious that some of the Dioceses from distant parts 
would not send their full delegation. Now if the 
Deputies from Massachusetts have permission to ap- 
propriate such number of seats as in their judgment 
shall be sufficient, we shall be brought closer to- 
gether than we have been here under the resolu- 
tion which M-as passed in 1871, whereby the 
Deputies from New York were compelled to allot 
eight seats to each Diocese. I therefore at the pro- 
per time — it probably will come in after this reso- 
lution — will move a resolution that the Deputies 
from the Diocese wherein the next General Conven- 
tion holds its meetings shall have power to appro- 
priate sufficient seats for the Deputies as to them 
shall seem meet. You observe this gives them a 
discretion which perhaps the House would not be 
willing to give. 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. I only 
want to say to the Deputy from New York, that I 
wish at the proper time to push the amendment I 
proposed, that Friday shall be substituted for Satur- 
day. The reason is obvious, I think, to all the gen- 
tlemen present. Even during the Saturdays when 
we have been in sassion here, the House has been 
thinner than on other days, and I fancy that by 
Saturday evening there will hardly be a corporal's 
guard left. Gentlemen must go home, clergymen 
especially, to attend their parishes for Sunday. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I think 
it is inexpedient that the House should not resolve to 
adjourn on Friday. We want a day for the tran- 
slation of the real business of this House. Having 
iinished these measures which have led to long- 
debate, in the course of to-moiTOw I do not doubt 
many messages of considerable importance 
^•an be sent to the House of Bishops, and if 
this House adjom-ns on Friday, the Consti- 
tutional time for the concurrence or non-concur- 
rence of the House of Bishops will not have elapsed, 
and if that House shall not act upon our messages 



sent to them to-moiTow, they will fall to the ground 
entirely. I think, therefore, for this reason, it is 
better for the House, if it can, to remain in session 
until Saturday afternoon. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabam.a. There is a great 
deal of work yet to be done by this Convention, 
work that has been referred to the committees, 
which have been laboriously engaged in their duties, 
and it is work, moreover, of no mean importance. 
In the course of the Ritual discussion, it 
was iDrought out that there was a strong feel- 
ing in favor, among other things, of a Rubri- 
cal Commission to revise the Rubrics of the 
Book of Common Prayer in a large-minded, com- 
prehensive, catholic spirit. To that end, if the Con- 
vention adopts that report of the Committee cn 
Canons, it will be necessary that a commission 
should be raised with extreme care. Not only must 
we have men of learning, but we must have men of 
candor and breadth of view on that commission. I 
consider that the selection of that commission will 
be one of the greatest acts of this Convention. 

Again, there are other matters to be brought be- 
fore the Convention. Om- Committee on Canons 
has now many things ready or on the point of being 
ready. I do not think that unless we have a night 
session we can rightfully adjourn before Saturday 
afternoon. I therefore trust that this Convention 
will either determine to sit at night, or sit till Satur- 
day afternooQ, or both, in order that the work may 
be done, and well and maturely done, with the full 
voice of a fuU House. 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. I would ask 
- the Secretary to state the matters that are now be- 
fore us that have to be acted on before we ad- 
jom-n. 

The SECRETARY. There are twenty-six items 
on the Calendar. There are twenty-two reports 
from the Committee on Ca,nons yet to be acted 
on; there are ten reports, it lam right in a hasty 
reckoning — six came in this very day — from the 
Committee on Constitutional Amendments. We 
have to take a vote by Dioceses and Orders on rati- 
fying the change in Article 4 of the Constitution ; 
and we have now five special orders of the day yet 
undecided, 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I should like to 
askthe Chairman of the Committee on Canons how 
many matters they have before the House not acted 
upon ? 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I cannot an- 
swer that question, but I am perfectly confident 
that the Committee on Canons can get through 
their docket, without any difficulty, by Friday 
night. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I move an 
amendment to the resolution offered by the gentle- 
man from Central Pennsylvania. I believe Ms mo- 
tion was that we should adjouna on Friday evening 
at ten o'clock. 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. Friday 
afternoon at five. I should be very glad to add to 
that, that we have one night session in the mean- 
time as well. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I was going to 
move that we have two evening sessions, one on 
Thursday and one on Friday, 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Why not take the question 
on agreeing to adjourn at five o'clock on Satm'day I 
Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I wish 
the Convention could adjourn on Friday night, but 
if there be anything in the point which has been 
submitted to us by the gentleman from Cen- 
tral New York, it is impossible that v/e 
can adjom-n even on Saturday. The Con- 
stitution requires that the House of Bishops shall 
have three days to act upon anything we send them, 
and therefore whatever we do to-morrow may not 



275 



necessarily be completed by the House of Bishops if 
we adjourn on Saturday. ' They require three full 
days. It seems to me that if the questions before 
us are to be settled by this Convention, it is impos- 
sible for \is to adjourn this week. I wish we could. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I wish the Conven- 
tion would stop this discussion and go to work on 
the Calendar. If we finish our work before Satur- 
day and the House of Bishops advise us that they 
are ready to adjourn, we can then adjourn; but if 
we go on spending our time in this discussion now, 
we shall certainly not adjourn on Saturday. 

Mr. BURGWiN", of Pittsburgh. We certainly 
have a very large amount of work upon our docket, 
and it depends on the Convention whether that 
work shall be done at all ; whether it shall be done 
carelessly or negligently, which would of course be 
a great deal worse than doing it not at all ; or whether 
we shall stay here and spend our time as we ought 
to do. I do not think the Convention is now pre- 
pared to fix a time when we shall adjourn. I believe 
that during to-day and to-morrow, after having 
worked upon our docket and seen what we have 
cleared off and what will still remain, we shall then 
be able to decide whether we can, in justice 
to the Church that we represent, adjourn this 
week. So far as adjourning on Friday is concerned, 
we might as well adjourn now. The greater part of 
the work which the different committees have pre- 
sented to you still remains to be considered, and a 
great portion of it ought to be well and deliberately 
considered, or else be thrown over to the ' next Gen- 
eral Convention. 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. I am 
quite convinced by what has been said since I moved 
the amendment, and I now withdraw it. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I move to post- 
pone the consideration of the question of the time 
of adjournment until to-morrow at four o'clock. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. It is evident to all 
members that it is necessary to give the House of 
Bishops three days' notice, that they may act with 
laaowledge. I think, therefore, it is better to stick 
to five o'clock on Saturday. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. It is suggested to 
me that the motion proper to be made is to lay this 
question on the table. If that be done, it can be 
taken up at any time we think proper. I make that 
motion. 

The motion was agreed to. 

THE BAPTISMAL SERVICE. 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. According to 
the ol-der of the day, heretofore fixed, the report of 
the Committee on Canons on Baptismal Service was i 
to be taken up immediately after the disposition of 
the Hymnal, but the time is so near for taking up 
the confirmation of the Missionary Bishops, that it ; 
has been suggested that that be postponed until to- \ 
morrow at twelve o'clock, and made the order of the ' 
day then. I make that motion. I 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I ask if j 
there is not an order already made for that hour ? I 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. This has the 
preference. But if you choose to make it the order i 
of the day for eleven o'clock, it will satisfy me. 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I think we had 
better stop making special orders, and go on and 
clear the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion, as I understand 
it, is to make the report of the Committee on Canons, i 
in regard to the Baptismal Office, the special order ! 
fqr to-morrow at eleven o'clock. 

The motion was agreed to. 

LIMITATION OF DEBATE. ! 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. In view of the j 
fact that there is so heavy an amount of work to be I 



! done, which will I'equiic carefulness as Vv-ell 
promptness, and promptness )io less than careful- 
ness, I move that, wiv.h the exception of Chairm( n 
: of Committees i-epresenting proposals coming from 
; Committees, this House hereafter limit all speeches 
I to ten minutes. 

' Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. 1 
would make one exception, and that is the discussit n 
of the Baptismal question. 
! Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. That is too 
I important a question to be limited to ten minutes, 
j Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I am appealed 
I to to except the question of the Baptismal ofiice. I 
I do so. My motion, therefore, will be that in all 
I business to be transacted hereafter, with the excep- 
j tion of the Baptismal Ofiice, speeches shall be limit- 
I ed to ten minutes, except only chairmen represent- 
i ing committees. 

The PRESIDENT. Is there to be no limit of time 
on the baptismal question ^ 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. It appears to 
be acceptable that twenty minutes should be the 
rule during the discussion "on the Baptismal Service, 
and I will incorporate that. 
Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. I know 
I many that will be limited by that at the time the 
I debate is going on. 

! The PRESIDENT. The question is on the mo- 
j tion of the Deputy fi'om Alabama that debate on 
I all questions that "come before this House dui^ing 
the session, except the Baptismal question, shall be 
I limited to ten minutes to each speech, and that on 
the Baptismal question they shall be limited to 
, twenty minutes, with the exception of chairmen of 
I committees. 

I The motion was agreed to. 

VOTE ON THE RITUAL CANON. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Is the Calendar now in 
order ? If so, I call for it. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will state the 
first matter in order on the Calendar. 

Mr. FORSYTH, of Albany. I rise to a question 
of privilege. In the report of the vote taken upon 
the Canon on the Ritual, as appears in the official or 
semi-official paper of this House, The Churchman, 
the Lay Deputies from the Diocese of Albany are 
reported as voting in the affirmative for that Canon. 
The fact is that they all voted the other way. We 
desire to have the record corrected in that respect. 

The SECRETARY. The record of the Secretary 
is correct. I am informed by the proprietors of 
The Churchman that they have discovered the 
error alluded to and other errors in the statement 
of that vote, and intend to make a correction. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. There was a sufficiently 
small minority, and we 'wish to have the benefit 
of it. 

committee ON INDIAN AFFAIRS. 

A message (No. 57) from the House of Bishops 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing preamble and resolution : 

"Whereas, The Chief Magistrate of the United 
States has asked the co-operation of this Church, and 
of other religious bodies, in promoting the civilization 
of the Indians by procuring for them moral and in- 
telligent agents, by supervising their work, and by 
assisting those agents to industrial pursuits ; and 

"Whereas, The Indian Commission of the Board 
of Missions has acceded to the request of the Presi- 
dent of the United States so far as to nominate 
agents for certain tribes of Indians; and 

" Whereas, It is expedient that the hands of these 
should be upheld by the Churches, and that the In- 
dians thould be protected in their rights ; therefore, 
" Resolved, That this House, with the concurrence 
of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, will ap- 



276 



point a Standing Committee on Indian Affsirs. com- 
posed of six laymen, to co-operate with tt e Bo ird 
of Missions by supervising the secular work c f the 
agencies imder their care, by procuring such civili- 
zing agencies as the Government does not provide, 
and by invoking the aid of the Government, and, if 
need be, the assistance of the courts, in protecting 
the rights of the Indians. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Is not that just 
what we did < 

The SECRETARY. We have passed by the action 
of this House a similar resolution. This now makes 
it the work of the General Convention, instead of 
this House. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Then I move that 
the message of the House of Bishops be concurred 
in ; and that will settle the matter. 

The motion to concur was agreed to. 

DELEGATES FROM MISSIONARY DISTRICTS. 

The House proceeded to the consideration of the 
Calendar, on which the first business was the follow- 
ing resolution reported by the Committee on 
Canons : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be dis- 
charged from the consideration of the proposed 
amendment to the standing order of ' Delegates 
from Missionary Jurisdictions.' " 

The resolution was agreed to. 

PRESIDING BISHOP. ' 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing resolution reported by the Committee on Canons 
on a Canon proposed by Rev. Mr. Knickerb acker of 
Minnesota: 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
Canon ' of the Presiding Bishop.'" 

The resolution was agreed to. 

The next Business on the Calendar was the fol- 
lowing reso lution reported from the Committee on 
Canons : 

"Resolved, That this House concurs in the amend- 
ment of [6] Section 7 of Canon 13 of Title I. , rela- 
ting to Standing Committiees in Missionary jurisdic- 
tion, proposed to this House in Message No. 9, from 
the House of Bishops. " 

The resolution was agreoi to. 

NICENE CREED, 

The SECRETARY. The nexb business on the 
Calendar is the report of the Committee on the 
Prayer-Book relating to the Nicene Creed, to which 
is appended the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That this Church ought not to enter 
upon any consideration of the proposition to revise 
the Nicene Creed until it can be done in united 
council of all those autonomous churches using the 
English rite and in communion with this Church 
and the Church of England." 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I presume 
from the tenor of this report it is intended to be en- 
tirely disinterested, dispassionate, and it is there- 
fore not an ex parte one. I call attention, however, 
to the ambiguity of a certain word in this report, 
that is to say, the word " orthodox." It is therein 
statei that the use of the Filioqm in 
the creed is capable of an orthodox interpretation, 
thereby giving rise to the inference that the ordi- 
nary, literal interpretation of the term is not ortho- 
dox\ It would strike many readers reading this 
report that the word " orthodox " here is used in a 
technical sense, as used by those who speak of the 
Holy Orthodox Eastern Church. I think the 
report should not be ambiguous, and should 
not seem to give any meaning to one side 
or the other of this controverted question, 
which, under the present phraseology, it 
strikes me it does seem to do. I therefore would 



! like to move the subsuitution of sdme other word , 
: or at least that this report be recommitted, in order 

to be amended in this particular, 
i Mr. MEADS, of Albany. Is the word "ortho- 
' dox " to be found in the resolution or in the re- 
- port? 

; Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. It is 
'\ used in the report. 

j Mr. MEADS, of Albany. This House is not bound 
I by the language of the report ; it is only bound by 
i the language of the resolution. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. The report 
will go on the Journal, and tljerefore it would 
seem to have been in the mmd of this Convention 
that the word " orthodox " in this particular does 
mean what is not in accordance with the literal in- 
terpretation of this word. 
I Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. That is a matter 
the House has nothing to do with, but only the Com- 
' mittee who drafted the report. What we have to do 
1 with is the resolution. I move that it be adopted. 
I The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop- 
tion of the resolution. 
The resolution was agreed to. 
Mr. McCR ADY, of South Carolina. I have been 
trying to get the eye of the Chair. I only want to 
say that the word can be used in two senses ; and if 
j the whole Convention should say that our creed was 
I correct in that respect, that would be no authority. 
1 I want to express my opinion. I know I cannot 
[ change the determination of this body. No one who 
j has ever examined the question tells us that it is 
I historic; and who can say that that word "pro- 
\ ceeded " has not the two Hteral senses and cannot be 
accommodated to any sense at all ? 

I ARTICLE 4 OP CONSTITUTION. 

I The SECRETARY. The next business on the 
I Calendar is a resolution respecting Article 4 of the 
I Constitution, reported on the 14th day, by the Com- 
I mittee on Amendments to the Constitution, to wit : 
' "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the alteration of Article 4 of the Constitution 
proposed in the last General Convention, and made 
known to the several Diocesan Conventions, and 
printed on page 160 of the J ournal of the last Gene- 
, ral Convention, be and the same is hereby finally 
I agreed to and ratified, as provided by Article 9 of 
! the Constitution." 
This requires a vote by Dioceses and orders. 
Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I move that we 
] proceed to vote. 

i Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. Will the Secretary 
read the amendment ? 
The Secretary read as follows : 
"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
\ That Article 4 of the Constitution be amended by 
i omitting the last seven words, 'by any Church 
I destitute of a Bishop,' and substituting the words 
i ' in another Diocese by the ecclesiastical authority 
I thereof,' so that the Article shall read: 
! "Article 4. The Bishop or Bishops in every Dio- 
I cese shall be chosen agreeably to such rules as shall 
\ be fixed by the Convention of that Diocese, and 
; every Bishop of this Church shall confine the exer- 
cise of his Episcopal Office to his proper Diocese, 
I unless requested to ordain or confirm, or perform 
' any other act of the Episcopal Office, in another Dio- 
cese by the Ecclesiastical authority thereof. " 
I The PRESIDENT. The question has to be taken 
I by Dioceses and Orders. 

i Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. If we 
I get a unanimous vote, that will include all the Dio- 
! ceses. I move that the resolution be adopted unan- 
' imously. 

i Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Cannot the Secretary 
just call the Dioceses by name, Alabama, etc., with- 
out taking the vote of each individual ? 



277 



Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. We can cast one 
solid voie for each Order in each deinitation. 

The PRESIDENT. The Dioceses will be called, 
and will vote as they are called. It is supposed 
that the action of the House will be unanimous, so as 
to save calling so many names. 

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. I hope I may be al- 
lowed to explain this vote. This amendment most cer- 
tainly ought to pass. As the law now stands, no Bishop 
has a right to exercise Episcopal functions beyond 
the limits of his Diocese, except in the case of a va- 
cancy. This law provides that he may so act on the 
invitation of the Diocese. That is simply the pro- 
vision. It was referred to the Committee on Canons 
last Convention, and I believe unanimously reported 
in favor of. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretaiy will call the 
roll of Dioceses. 

The Dioceses were called with the following re- 
sult : 

Clerical Vote.— ye. —Alabama, Albany, Cali- 
fornia, Central New York, Central Pennsylvania, 
Connecticut, Delaware, Easton, Florida, Georgia, 
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Long Is- 
land, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Neb- 
raska, New Hampshire, New Jei*sey, New York, 
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvaina, Pittsburgh, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 
Vermont, Virginia, Western New York, Wisconsin 
—40. 

Lay Vote.— ^?/e — Alabama, AVoanj, Central 
New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Easton, Florida, 
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Long Island, Louisiana, Maine. Maryland, Massa- 
chusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North 
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Rhode 
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, 
Virginia, Western New York, Wisconsin— 38. 

The PRESIDENT. The proposed amendment of ; 
the Constitution is finally ratified, so far as depends | 
on this House. I 

LECTIONARY FOR LENT. • 

The SECRETARY. The next business on the | 
Calendar is the report of the Joint Committee to 
prepare the new Lectionary for week-days in Lent, j 
copies of which will be distributed. | 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New- York. That report has \ 
never been read. I call for its reading. j 

The SECRETARY read as f oUows : ' i 

" The Joint Committee, to whom was assigned by , 
the last General Convention the preparation of a | 
Table of Lessons for the week-days of Lent, beg leave i 
to report the accompanying table and resolution : j 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), ] 
That the Table of Lessons reported by the Committee | 
be authorized for use till the next General Conven- ; 
tion, provided the same shall be approved by the ! 
Bishop of each Diocese or Missionary Jurisdiction, , 
respectively. I 

"Resolved, That the Joint Committee be con- 
tinued in charge of this matter for its more i 
thorough consideration, and to afford opportunity \ 
for such improvements as may be suggested by its | 
actual use, i 
"The Committee would add that whilst engaged in ; 
the duty assigned to them they have also prepared ^ 
a table of lessons for the ^Pmber and Rogation days, [ 
regarding this, though not specified, as embraced in 
the spirit and aim of the resolution under which ' 
they were appointed, and recommend the follow- , 
ing resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Table of Lessons for the 
Ember and Rogation Days, herewith presented by I 



the Committee, be authori?:ed for use on the came 
condition as the Table of Lessons for Lent." 
Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Is the report signed ? 
Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. It is signed by 
all the members of the Joint Committee. I ask the 
Secretary to read the names. 

The Secretary read as folio ws : 
"ALEX. GREGG, J. FREEMAN YOUNG, 

M. A. DE W. HOWE, T. W. COIT, 
ALFRED B. BEACH, E. E. BEARDSLEY. 
ISAAC G. HUBBARD, CHARLES R. HALE. " 
Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Under the ac- 
tion of the Convention the other day upon the reso- 
lution offered by the Committee on Amendments to 
the Constitution, as I understand, it will be impossi- 
ble for us to get the use of this Lectionary under 
three years. Am I right in that ? 

The PRESIDENT. I do not recollect the deci- 
sion of the HoTise. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Is this Lec- 
tionary part of the Prayer-Book ? If it is, nothing 
but a constitutional amendment would reach it. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Now I have 
the answer for that question. Under the action of 
the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, 
it is impossible for us to pass this first resolution, in- 
asmuch as they have decided that this cannot be al- 
tered under three yeai-s. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. That has not 
passed this House. Their report simply goes on the 
Calendar, to come up in its order. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. It will do no 
harm, at any rate, for me to move the passage of 
i the following resolution : 

I " Resolved, That the Joint Committee be contimi- 
' ed in charge of this matter for its more thorough 
consideration, and to afford opportunity for such 
improvements as may be suggested by its actual 
use." ! 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I make this 
suggestion: The report from the Committee on 
Canons, which will be made the order of the day on 
Friday, provides for a commission to revise the 
Rubrics of the Prayer-Book, and many other 
things to prepare a new Lectionary especially for 
Lent. If that be adopted, it will undoubtedly cover 
the resolution which the gentleman now offers, and 
I presume it will be adopted ; but inasmuch as it 
may miscarry by press of time or for other reasons, 
and inasmuch as we all admit that we do re- 
quire a new Lectionary, and it is conceded that it 
Avill require three years to give us that Lectionary, 
I am prepared now to move that this Lectionary be 
proposed by this General Convention for adoption 
at the next. It does not require a change of the Con- 
stitution. That is a misconception. The 
Constitution itself, in Article 8, provides that 
alterations and changes in the Prayer-Book 
may be made (and of course a Lectionary is a 
portion of the Prayer Book) at one General Conven- 
tion, and adopted at the other. We therefore bv 
such action do not touch the Constitution; we 
simply act under the Constitution. It is Article ^) 
which provides how changes in the Constitution 
may be made. 

Of the Lectionary which has now been presented 
I know nothing, but am willing to take it from the 
Committee as they have presented it ; and if it be 
the sense of the House that this Lectionary should 
be at all events proposed for adoption, if they have 
such confidence in the Committee as to be willing to 
propose it for adoption and thereby save three 
years, the only way in which it can be done is now 
hy action of this House to propose it for adoption at 
the next General Convention, and if then it be 
adopted it willlfoecome final. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I wish to say on behalf 
of the Committee — 



278 



Rev. Dr, BEACH, of New York. I shall be 
througii ill one moment. I wish simply to say that 
a Lectionary for the whole Christian year has been 
prepared by this Conmiittee. It was a Joint Com- 
mittee, appointed in 1868. If the Committee on the 
revision of the Rubrics — 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The Committee 
on Canons have presented a report, asking this 
House to raise a Commission to i-evise the Rubrics, 
and to take into consideration the adoption of a 
new Lectionary as a portion of the measure, Avhich 
they are now prepared to advocate. Of course, 
we may prepare a Lectionary without touch- 
ing the Rubrics, except in that particular, 
but the object of the Committee was to have a gen- 
eral revision of the Rubrics, and especially that that 
Commission have in charge the preparation of a 
new Lectionary, especially for Lent ; but the mem- 
bers will perceive that that will postpone action for 
six years, because that Commission cannot report 
imtil the next General Convention. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. The 
Committee on Constitutional Amendments have 
prepared a report extending the Constitution in 
such a general manner that we can pass the Lec- 
tionary aft the next General Convention without 
proposing it at this. Adopt it first by this Con- 
vention, and then ratify it by the next Convention, 
and then any Convention will have it in its power, 
without its being proposed to the previous Conven- 
tion, to adopt w^hat you suggest, 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I understand 
that; but that depends on two contingencies. It 
depends upon the contingency of our proposing that 
amendment or agreeing to it, if it should ever be 
reached; and, in the second place, whether it will 
be acted upon favorably by the next General 
Convention, which are two very doubtful con- 
tingencies; but as a Lectionary for the whole 
year which this Committee has prepared, I for one 
am willing to vote for it now, without knowing 
anything of it more than that it has come from that 
Committee, and let it rest for three years, so that 
independently of all other contingencies, if we ap- 
prove it, we may finally agree to it and ratify it and 
make it the Lectionary of the Church, of which we 
all know the great want. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. Mr. 
President — 

The PRESIDENT. Dr. Beach gave way to the 
gentleman from Pittsburgh. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. That explan- 
ation has involved me in so much talk in connection 
with the whole subject that I propose to leave it, 
I take it for granted this Convention does not propose 
to leave tw^o committees engaged on one and the 
same work. 

This Joint Committee which was appointed in 
1868 will have to be discharged from this whole 
matter, and then the work which they have ac- 
complished can be passed over to this Committee, 
if is raised or created ; and it strikes me that 
on the Calendar we are getting somewhat mixed. 
If we knew what these propositions 
were to be, and what action would be 
taken by this Convention upon them, 
then we should be enabled to go over this matter with 
somethmg like order. But as it stands now, I am 
forestalling, it seems, by this report some work which 
it is proposed to do hereafter touching the same 
subject. I move that this report be laid on the 
table until the report of the Committee on Canons 
touching the Rubrical revision is reached, and that 
it be taken up in connection with that subject, 

Mr. McCRADY. of South Carolina. This Com- 
mittee have prepared a portion of a^ectionary, and 
they submit it to us. Why not let that go down to 
all the Dioceses and return here at the next Conven- 



j tion ? If you do that, you can act upon this portion 
of their report at all events. We need not discharge 
i the Committee. They remain to perfect their 
i work, and, so far as they have gone, we can act 
' on it in 1877. Now, it is not well to trust to what is 
I to be done by this House as to amendments to the 
i Constitution or the Prayer-Book, because there is a 
! difference of opinion about that even in our own 
I Committee, and I shall certainly be very loth to see 
this House adopt such a resolution as is said to 
have been i-eported by the Committee on Amend- 
I ments to the Constitution, and I shall ask a 
I hearing on that subject. This Committee can now 
I act directly and act securely if they will only send 
i down this Lectionary as a proposal that the Lection- 
I ary shall be so amended in the particulars which 
I they have named, and hereafter, when they have 
I completed their labors, send the rest. You act upon 
j the Prayer-Book, you do not act upon the Constitu- 
( tion. 

I Mr, BATTLE, of North Carohna, It is four 
o'clock, and I call for the order of the day. 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. That is out 
of order. There is a motion to lay this report on 
the table. 

! Rev. Mr, ROGERS, of Texas. If the gentleman 
I making the report will allow me to offer a substitute 

for his motion, I desire to introduce two resolutions, 
: which send this Lectionary down. I wish to move 
' that this Table of Lessons be sent to the Dioceses for 
! consideration, I wish to move, second, 

" Resolved, that the said proposition be made 

known to the several Diocesan Conventions." 
I Because it has to be sent down by resolution. 

That places it before the Dioceses, and it may be 
, acted upon at the next General Convention. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. * WiU you in- 
' elude in that the Table of Lessons for the Rogation 

Days and Ember Days ? 
Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I wiU. 
I Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. And the Lec- 

tionary for the whole Christian year ? 
I Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. " Yes, as you have 
i reported them. 

I Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. It maybe proper 
; for me here to state that this is to all intents and pur- 
j poses the same with the new Lectionary of the Church 
I of England. I will withdraw my motion for that of 
I the gentleman from Texas. 

I Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Then I move that 
the Lectionary as just'reported be proposed, and I 
I move this resolution — " That the Secretary be direc- 
: ted to transmit said proposition to the several 
1 Dioceses." That conforms to the eighth article 
[ exactly. 

I Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I submit 
I there wiU be an interference with the other measures 
: proposed by the Committee on Canons, which pro- 
j poses to take up this very subject. The Commission 

on the Revision of Rubrics will be acting upon this 
! very question at the same time that this precise form 
\ of it is presented to the Dioceses, 
I Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. This only aHows 
i us to act upon both three years hence. That is all 

it does, and if w^e do not do this we may be com- 
i pelled, and shall be compelled, to go six years. That 
' is the only difference. 

The PRESIDENT. The time has now arrived for 

the order of the day. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. I think we 
, can vote on the question before us now. 
j The PRESIDENT. Is the House ready for the 

question on the resolution ^ " Yes." 
Mr. DE ROSSET, of North Carolina. Must we 

not take the vote on that by Dioceses and orders ? 
1 Mr. BATTLE, of North "Carolina. I call for the 
■ order of the day. 



279 



The PRESIDENT. The order of the day is called 
for, aud we must go to that. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. There are three 
minutes left. 

The PRESIDENT. It will take a great deal more 
than thi-ee minutes. We have to take the vote by- 
Dioceses and orders. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Not unless it is 
called for. 

The PRESIDENT. To change the Praver-Book ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. This"' does not 
change the Prayer-Book. It only proposes to change 
it. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. 
There ai'e some members who wish to express their 
views on this question a little more fully. There 
will be further debate on it if we insist on taking 
the question now. [" Order of the Day."] 

MISSIONARY BISHOPS. 

The SECRETARY. The order of the day is a 
message from the House of Bishops nominating a 
Missionary Bishop to Shanghai, China, together 
with the nominations sent down from the House of 
Bishops this morning. 

All persons having retired from the Chapel ex- 
cept the Deputies and the Secretary and his Assist- 
ants, the House proceeded with closed doors to con- 
sider the nominations for Missionary Bishops, sent 
down from the House of Bishops. 
The House remained in secret session till the usual 
hour of adjournment, when it adjourned till to-mor- 
row morning at nine o'clock. 



TWENTIETH DAY. 

Thursday, October 29. 
The Convention assembled in St. J ohn's Chapel at 
nine a. m. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psalter 
by Rev. Giles A. Easton, of California. The Lessons 
were read by Rev. Edwin M. Van Deusen, d.d., of 
Central New York. The Creed and Prayers were 
said by the Right Rev. William CrosweU Doane, 
D.D., Bishop of Albany, who also pronounced the 
Benediction. 

The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read 
and approved. 

PLACE OF MEETINa. 

A message (No. 58) from the House of Bishops an- 
noiinced that the House had concurred with Message 
No. 47 from the House of Deputies naming Boston as 
the place for the meeting of the next General Con- 
vention. 

SECRET SESSION. 

On motion of Mr. BIRDSALL, of California, it 
was 

" Ordered, That at two o'clock to-day the House 
go into secret session for the purpose of considering 
ihe nominations of Missionary Bishops." 

BOARD OF MISSIONS. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I present the 
report of the Committee on the Domestic and 
Foreign Missionary Society. The Committee stand 
ready to read by title or to read through the docu- 
ment, just as the Convention wishes. 

The PRESIDENT. Perhaps it had better be read 
by title, to save time. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I move that the re- 
port be read by its title. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland: 
The Committee on the Domestic and Foreign 
Missionary Society beg leave to report : 

' ' As the meeting of the Board of Missions every 
third year is held simultaneously with the General 



Convention, and as the whole Church is represented 
in both of those bodies, it does not seem necessary 
to present to this latter any extended notice of the 
proceedings of the former. It is one of the auspi- 
cious sig-ns of life and light in the Church that the 
participation of her members in her missionary 
council is becoming so general and hearty. It is to 
be hoped that the time is nol; far off when legislation 
itself will pause for a day or more, and suspend its 
deliberations or enactments in favor of a higher 
contemplation of the needs of the Church in that 
which most intimately concerns both its vitality 
and its growth. It would be well to refresh one's 
faith when the disturbances, the jars, the causes of 
disquiet, the hindrances and clogs of the hour call 
for interference by law, by looking away to the 
magnificent promise and opportunity of good pre- 
sented to our view in the providence of God, as well 
as to the attempt of the Church to respond to the 
summons. 

"The spread and increase of the kingdom of 
Christ are apparent on every side. From the mis- 
sion that lienetrates into lanes and alleys to that 
which overtakes the pioneer on the outskirts, or car- 
ries its blessings into heathen wilds — all is cheering — 
save the lack of means. Both the laborer and his 
hire are wanting. The harvestman to go wherever 
his Lord shall bid him to gather in the sheaves, and 
the ' sending ' of that harvestman fully furnished 
and abetted on the part of the Church, there the 
great needs are inadequately supplied. The slow in- 
crease of the ministry is alarming, but still more 
disquieting is the inability of Committees to meet 
their obligations through a failure of gifts and of 
the chief pastors of the fold to fill vacancies in their 
missionary appointments. 

" Your Committee entrusted to subcommittees of 
their body to report, and reports them back as their 
own, and I now present to this House : 1st. The re- 
port which relates to domestic missions. 2d. The 
Indian Commission. 8d. Home missions to colored 
people. 4th. Foreign missions. 5th. The women's 
auxiliary to the Board." 

The Committee report the following resolutions 

"Whereas, The Board of Missions_is seriously con- 
sidering a proposal to embrace the "several depart- 
ments of Mission work in one large committee, to dis- 
cuss all important subjects with the view of pro- 
moting harmonious action, and then commit the 
several departments to subcommittees ; and where- 
as, a resolution has been adopted by the Board of 
Missions referring this important subject to a large 
committee for consideration and report; 

"Therefore, resolved. The House of Bishops con- 
curring, that in the event of the approval by the 
Board of Missions, when the General Convention is 
not in session, of the plan referred to in the forego- 
ing preamble, said Board is hereby authorized to 
appoint eight additional members to their Standing 
Committees, making twenty-four in all to carry out 
such plan as may be adopted by the Board of Mis- 
sions, and to report to the General Convention at 
its next session such amendments of the Constitu- 
tion as may be necessary to give the plan stability 
and authority. 

"3. Resolved (the House of Bishops concuri-ing), 
That the Constitution of the Domestic and Foreign 
Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America be amended 
by changing, in the first line of Article XII., the 
word ' clergyman ' to * person ' ; by inserting, in the 
second line of the same Article, before the words 
'until after,' the following words : ' except with the 
express consent of the Board of Missions ' ; in line 
7 by striking out ' person ' and inserting ' Clerical 
Missionary ' and striking out the words 'a mission- 
ary ' ; and by adding, at the close of the whole Article, 
the following words : " Or of a Church in full com- 



280 



munion with this Church and connected therewith by 
recognized official relations. ' 

" Article XII. will then read thus : 

"Article XII. 

'"No person shall be appointed a missionary by 
the Board, or by either of the Committees, except 
with the express consent of the Board of Missions, 
until after conference with the ecclesiastical author- 
ity of the Diocese or Missionary District to which 
he belongs, nor shall any missionary be sent to offi- 
ciate in any Diocese or Missionary District without 
the consent of the ecclesiastical aAithority of the 
same, except when regularly called by an organ- 
ized parish, in accordance with the Canons, both 
Diocesan and general, and no cler ical missionary 
shall be appointed who is not at the time a minister 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church, of regular 
standing, or of a Church in full commmiion with 
this Church and connected therewith by recognized 
official relations. I 

"Whereas, The Board of Missions is acting under j 
the authority of the General Convention, and should 
in all important measures be controlled by its fun- 
damental prmciples ; therefore, 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring:), 
That Article 7 of the Constitution of the Domestic { 
and Foreign Missionary Society be amended by in- 1 
serting the following Avords at the end of the first j 
line of the second paragraph, after the word ' quo- j 
rum,': ' and in all questions, when required by three 
members, the clerical and lay members of the Board 
of Missions shall vote separately, and their concur- 
rence shall be necessary to constitute a vote.' 

"Whereas, The proposed increase in the Episco- 
pate for Domestic and Foreign Missions, and the j 
call for greater efficiency in missions to the Indian ] 
and the colored races, e\ances a large develop- | 
ment of missionary zeal and faith, and will requii'e i 
a liberal supply of "men and money; therefore, j 

"Resolved, That each parish minister be request- i 
ed to disseminate information likely to develop an { 
intelligent zeal for missions, and also to form organ- 
izations that each parish may become a missionary ! 
training-school, and that contributions for missions 
may be systematically collected." 

Rev. Mr. HENSHAW, of Rhode Island, Let 
the resolutions go on the Calendar. 

Mr. WELSH, of Penns^dvania, These are very 
important matters that require the action of the 
House of Bishox^s. They require concurrence. 

Rev. Mr. HENSHAW, of Rhode Island. There 
is a very important resolution there that requires 
consideration. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. If the Secretary 
will read the resolution separately, any one can lay 
over tha.t is objected to. The House of Bishops 
must act on them, or they v/ill not become the 
law. 

The Secretary read the first resolution. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pemisylvania. This is merely I 
giving the Board of Missions, at its next meeting, 
authority to work out a plan by which it is thought 
the Missions of this Church will be brought into 
harmony. There is no objection to it, I think. 

Mr. RUGGLES, oi New York. There is no 
amendment to the Constitution proposed here ? 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. No, sir. 

The first resolution was agreed to. 

The Secretary read the next resolution, propos- 
ing a change in Article 12 of the Constitution of the 
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylania. Those who ne- 
glected their duty last night and did not go to the 
Board of Missions, will perhaps be ignorant as to 
this. The whole macter v/as fully discussed there, i 
We learned that instead of appointing a Bishop for ! 
Hayti, they asked the Church in Hayti to elect I 



theii' own Bishop, for they desire to have that in 
perfect accord with the Church in this country. 
Under the Constitution as it stands, they cannot do 
it. It is believed also that there is a great amount 
of right spirit in Mexico that under the preeent con- 
stitution our Missionary Board is restricted from 
helping in the best way. There is no restriction in 
the Church Missionary Society at all. They can help 
it, but our Society is restricted. 

Again it has been usual to send out others than 
clergymen. The Foreign Committee have taken 
the responsibility of doing it. There is no authority 
in the Constitution for it. It was thought that so 
large a body as the Board of Missions, especially as 
you put the restriction on them, that they can call 
for a vote by orders at any time, should have spec- 
ifically the authority to do what they have been 
actually doing for years. They have sent women 
out, noble women. Those who were in Grace 
Church the other day understood that when they 
were asked in the House of Bishops whether there 
was not some suitable x:>erson in China who could 
be elected to the Episcopate, it was said, "Yes, there 
is; but she is a woman, and not a man, and there- 
fore we cannot elect her," What they want is 
simply authority to work. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I move the pas- 
sage of the resolution. 

Rev. Mr. HENSHAW, of Rhode Island. I wish 
to ask a question whether this does not give pennis- 
sion to the Board to employ a person who is not a 
minister of this Church ; that is to say, a minister 
of some of the denominations around us, if they wish 
to do so? That is one point that I want brought out 
here this mornmg. I understood the Bishop of Ni- 
obrara last night to state that it did. 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I think the ques- 
tion put by the gentleman is a very important 
one. I attended the Missionary meeting last night, 
and that question was put by the Bishop of Niobrara, 
and I understood him to admit that it would au- 
thorize the employment of dissenting Ministers 
from theii- own churches in any portion of the 
world where we choose to esta^blish missions ; that 
it could be done in Hayti ; that it could be done in 
Mexico, to the extent that disaffected Presbyters of 
the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico— those were 
not his words, but that was the necessary infer- 
ence—could be taken under the pay and into the 
service of the Board of Missions of this Protestant 
Episcopal Church. Now, I say that is a very radi- 
cal innovation upon the policy of this Church. I 
do not think we ought to subsidize disaffected Ro- 
man Catholic ministers, or pension them, or take 
them under our control or pay. If they are fit for 
ordination, or rather reception without ordination, 
all right. I do not think, though, that the General 
Convention of this Church ought to undertake to 
have an imperium in imperio in another man's Di- 
ocese, or inside of the Church of somebody else. It 
struck me so last night, though I did not participate 
in the debate, I thought it a very important enquiry 
how far this Church is to become the proselyter and 
the innovator into other domains. 

Rev. Dr, BURGESS, of Massachusetts. It will 
be seen by this Article that while it would be possi- 
ble to say that a person might be appointed a mis- 
sionary by the Board Avho was a Presbyterian cler- 
gyman, yet he cannot be appointed until after con- 
ference with the ecclesiastical authority of the Dio- 
cese or Missionary District to Which he belongs. 
When we come to the point of the Clerical Mission- 
ary, who is to act as such abroad, the whole matter 
is guarded carefully. He must be a minister of this 
Church, in regular standing, or else of a Church in 
full communion with our Church. 

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. Must not this go 
on the Calendar if it excites discussion f 



Rev. Mr. HENSHAW, of Rhode Island. I say 
that when a committee present a report or resolution 
to this body or to the Board of Missions, or to any oth- 
er body by which the.y are appointed, it is supposed 
that they" understand its meaning. Last evening 
the Bishop of Niobrara, who presented tliese resolu- 
tions, was asked the question, and he answered it 
distinctly , " Will not this change in the Constitution 
make it possible for the Board to appoint a mission- 
ai'5' not of this Church, if this amendment to the 
Constitution takes place ?" and his reply was, "It 
wUl." 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. As a member of 
the Board of Missions, I ask for only a moment in 
which to remove the apprehension of the eminent 
Deputy from Tennessee that the proposed employ- 
ment of auxiliaries in foreign countries wiU work a 
"radical revolution" in our missionary work. It 
will not and cannot be "radical," because it cannot 
reach the great "root " of the Protestant Episcopal 
Chm'cli, so deeply planted in our broad continent, 
and so well able to sustain any growth or expansion 
of the majestic branches reaching out to overshadow 
"aU lands." I beheve that any well-disposed per- 
sons of any sect or tongue in foreign lands, that 
should be selected after careful examination by our 
Board of Missions, may be employed with peculiar 
advantage to extend in their own language the 
world-encircling missionary work of the Church. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. It is my impres- 
sion that no action can be matured and perfected 
until another General Convention, and in the mean 
time this proposition will be opened to the whole 
Church. If it is discussed now, I fear it will occupy 
too much time ; but I think there are ways of meet- 
ing some of the objections which have been put to 
this House, that might satisfy most minds. How- 
ever, as these are not my resolutions, nor had I any- 
thing to do in the furthering of them, I am perfectly 
willing, and I hope the House will be perfectly will- 
ing, to let them go on the Journal for action at 
another General Convention. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. These resolutions 
come to us from the Board of Missions certified by 
their Secretary as their request to us. If the House 
of Bishops concm-, they become a law immediately. 
If the House of Bishops do not concur, of course they 
will be null. 

The Constitution of the Board of Missions is very 
different from ours. It is a simple thing ; and this 
Board of Missions is composed of the working body 
of our Church. I think they are entitled to about 
as much confidence as the General Convention. 
They are the most active and earnest men of our 
Church. All they ask is now, as God's spirit has 
filled them, a little liberty to do that which we all 
desire to do, extend Christ's kingdom. They want 
the field open to send missionaries, teachers, physi- 
cians, and holv women. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I believe that I 
have as much anxiety in regard to the progress of 
missions as any man on this floor. I have also had 
as much anxiety in regard to Mexico as any ma,n on 
this floor can have. But I see behind this — and I 
had no voice in the Board of Missions because I was 
not there — I see behind this a matter that I believe 
is a great error and a great wrong. To-day we are 
asked to put some missionaries in Mexico. I hope 
it will be done. But we have already there a gen- 
tleman of our Church who has begun "work in Mex- 
ico. I have in my possession a letter from a well- 
known gentleman of my own Diocese, now in the 
city of Mexico, a candidate for orders, saying to me 
that the work of the Episcopal Church in the city of 
Mexico, and in Mexico generally, is going on partly 
under the Prayer-Book of the Episcopal Church, 
partly under prayers made by each person in his own 
parish or Church, partly carried on by the minis- 



ters of the Church in the United States, and partly 
by Presbyterians, and partly by Methodists. 

Now I believe that what is mider this matter — I 
can see no ♦other reason for this change — is that the 
intended Episcopate for Mexico shall be an Episco- 
pate that will be ready to recognize workers from 
Mettiodihls and from Presbyterians. I am glad to 
have tbem work there, but I am not wiUing that 
they should work in the harness of the Episcopal 
Church until they come into it properly ; and, 
therefore, I object. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
wish to enter my protest, most earnestly, against 
what I conceive to be the dangerous principle put 
forth bv the Reverend Denuty from Maryland. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I beg pardon. I 
thought it was an amendment to the Constitution. 
I find I was mistaken, and I withdi'aw my sugges- 
tion. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. Even 
although his argument is withdrawn, I must press 
the points. 

Mr. ATW ATER, of Minnesota. I rise to a ques- 
I tion of order. It is manifest that this debate is 
! entirely out of order, unless the rules are suspended, 
I and as^it is evidently to take up a large share of the 
' time, i move that this resolution go on the Cal- 
endar. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. Has 
not that point been decided in a former discussion in 
this House, that when a matter has been brought 
I fairly before the House, the question has been stated 
and the debate commenced, it is then too late to 
■ raise such a point of order ? I think it has been more 
than once so decided in the course of the session of 
this Convention. 
The PRESIDENT. I do not recollect about that. 
Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. 
I Presuming that I am right, for the general sense of 
the House seems to sustain me, the principle against 
i which I wish to protest is this, that this House 
! should ever on any matter of importance — and this 
I question is certainly one, and the question that is to 
j come before us soon with regard to the alteration 
j of the Rubrics in the Prayer-Book is another — yield 
i to the plea of letting a thing pass, that the next Con- 
I vention may have it before it without our hin- 
! drance. 

; There are questions of alteration of the Constitu- 
' tion, questions of alteration of the Prayer-Book, 
i which we are sent here to watch, and until they 
I receive our definite approval in this Convention, and 
are formally proposed (v^hich presumes the ap- 
1 proval of this Convention ) to the next, they can- 
not be adopted. 
Now, the plausible plea is urged in this and in 
1 another case, that we shall step aside from om' duty ; 
I that we shall prove false to our position as guar- 
I dians and watchmen of the Church in this respect, 
I and let the thing go by default; that when a propo- 
j si tion to change the Prayer-Book or the Constitu- 
I tion of the Church is brought before us, we should 
I say, "There are tlu'ee years to discuss it; the Church 
I can consider it in that time, and that will leave the 
j way open." Sir, we are not here to leave the 
j way open. We are put here, if we see reason, to 
I stop it," to put a bar in the way. I hope no action 
j will be taken either in regard to pomts afilectiug 
j the Constitution or points affecting the Prayer- 
: Book, without the full and careful consideration of 
j this Convention, that we shall not throw the mat- 
' ter over to the next Convention without our full 
I approval. 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. Had not the 
Reverend Deputy from Rhode Island brought this 
subject before the House, I was prepared to do so, 
I was at the Board of Missions last night, and I 
voted against this resolution there ; and it was car- 



ried by a majority of only two or three, I believe. 
At that time, the same question which has been 
brought up hei'e was, indeed, asked and answered ; 
and whilst the answer was somewhat indefinite, it 
nevertheless, in my judgment, covered such a case 
as has been represented to us by the Reverend 
Deputy from Texas ; and in view of this, I believe 
it is a subject which should be very carefully 
thought upon, and we should vote against this 
amendment at once, in order that there may come 
up again before us at the proper time such action as 
may be wished for by the Board of Missions in the 
proper way. The argument that fell from the Rev- 
erend Deputy ' from Central Pennsylvania is, I 
think, most timely at this time. 

Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. I wish to 
say one word in regard to Mexico. The great leader 
in that reform movement is a friend of mine, and 
I can entirely disabuse the minds of brethren here, 
both clerical and lay, of any idea of bringing up on 
the same platform Methodists and Presbyterians ; 
but, at the same time, it must be recollected that 
the Mexicans are principally Roman Catholics; and 
if former Catholic priests could be all under the con- 
trol of our own Church, it would be desirable. I 
am somewhat acquainted with the work there. I 
am somewhat acquainted with the work that has 
been begun and somewhat carried on by our beloved 
brother in Mexico, who is in charge there, and I 
know that he loves the Church and has no 
desire to bring outsiders up to the same platform, 
though he would be very willing to have them 
as assistants, just as we take in our 
missionary organization the services of lay- 
women and laymen. If we could, in some way or 
other, extend the Episcopate there, I am sure he 
would be the last to throw any objection in the way. 
I think so from a conversation I have had with 
him on this subject. I believe this is a great and 
glorious work, that it is paralleled only by the 
old Reformation on the other side of the Atlantic ; 
and I think this subject, although it has been pre- 
sented to our attention at the last moment, is one 
which should command our attention. I hope the 
Convention will not tie its hands, but will consider 
this matter, and allow the members of this Conven- 
tion and the church generally in the interim to 
think on it. No harm can be done by adopting this 
resolution, and I do hope that all action will not be 
stifled. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. Mr. President, 
I understand that the oflBce of the first change is to 
qualify the Committee to send ladies and physicians 
who are now sent without any express authority of 
the Board, and the object of the second change is to 
qualify any clerical missionary to act in our foreign 
or other missionary jurisdictions, who shall be in 
the first place one of our own clergy, or next a cler- 
gyman of a Church in full communion with this 
Church, and in recognized official relations with it. 
It seems to me this is guard enough; but as that 
does not seem to be clear to many in the House, I 
move respectfully that this article be referred back 
to the Board of Missions for further conference to- 
night, and it may be presented on the morrow in 
another form to this House, and that the discussion 
on the remaining resolutions be taken up at that 
time. 

Revr. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I second the mo- 
tion. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Would it not be 
better to refer the resolutions back to the Commit- 
tee of our House, and let them present it ? 

Rev. Mr. LEEDS. I accept the amendment for 
recommittment to the Committee. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion is to recommit 
the resolutions to the Committee on the Foreign 
and Domestic Missionary Society. 



The motion was agreed to. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh, submitted the 
following report : 

"The Joint Committee of Conference, appointed to 
consider the disagreement between the two Houses 
in regard to an amendment to Section 1, of Canon 
1, Title III. , proposed by the House of Deputies, 
respectfully report that they recommend the adop- 
tion of the proposed amendment, with the altera- 
tion of the words, ' each House of the General Con- 
vention,' to 'the House of Deputies,' as expressed 
in the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the following clause be added to 
Section 1, of Canon 1, of Title ill., of the Digest: 

"[4.] The Rules and Orders of the House of Dep- 
uties shall be in force in the ensuing General Con- 
vention until the organization thereof, and until 
they be amended or repealed by the said House. 
"By order of the Committee on the part of the 

House of Bishops, 

"J. WILLIAMS. 
"By order of the Committee on the part of the 
House of Deputies, 

"WM. COOPER MEAD." 
The report was placed on the Calendar. 

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION. 

Rev. Mr. JOHNSON, of Connecticut, from the 
Committee on Christian Education, submitted the 
following report : 

The Committee on Christian Education respectfully 
submit their report. In their efforts to make 
their deliberations of some practical value to the 
Church, your Committee have met with several 
difficulties : 

1. Most of us are placed for the first time on 
this Committee, which of all others requires contin- 
uance of service, if matured thought and counsel are 
to be secured. 

2. The lamented death of the Rev. Dr. Jackson, 
the late Chairman of this Committee, has deprived 
us of the material which he was collecting for a full 
report on the present state of Church education, and 
your Committee deeply feel the loss of his large ex- 
perience and ripened judgment. Such new statis- 
tics as have been hastily brought together are insuf- 
ficient to enable us to perform the promise contained 
in the report of 1871, viz., to " prepare a report based 
on a wide induction of facts which may prove of 
service in future consideration of the question." 

3. Such suggestions as we would now make have 
been largely anticipated in the able reports which 
have preceded this, especially those presented to the 
General Conventions of 1865 and 1868. 

4. Besides, the subject, as at present entrusted to us, 
withovit any precise limits, is comprehensive in the 
extreme, and reaches in its various divisions to all 
departments of the Church's work. We have 
thought it best, therefore, to confine ourselves to two 
or three points, which have to do with the present 
needs of the Church and the present duty of Church- 
men. 

I. OUR EXISTING INSTITUTIONS. 

There are numerous Church schools for boys and 
girls started, chiefly by private enterprise, or the 
energy of some Bishop, assisted by the munificence 
of one or more of the laity. Most of them are with- 
out endowment, and are dependent upon the charac- 

I ter and exertions of those who have them in charge. 

j They live by the day, on what is received for board 
and tuition, and have no reserve funds for building 
purposes, repairs, increase of libraries, and other 
educational equipments. The income of their teach- 
ers is proportioned to the amount of patronage 
received. The number of free scholars is measured 
by the ability rather than by the will or the wishes 



283 



of those who manage their affairs. There are no 

endowed scholarships pro%"ided for the sons and 
daughtei-s of the clergy, and other deserving youth, 
or, at least, so few as to do little towards meeting 
the demand. Nearly all these schools — even the 
most prosperous — are hindered in their work by this 
dependent condition. They are compelled, in the ma- 
jority of instances, to practise the costly economy of 
poverty' If those who are doing the work have any 
true ideal of what Christian cixlture is, and what 
kind of education in the Church our times require, 
they must be paiufully conscious how inadequate are 
the means at their disposal, to attain the desired re- 
sults. It is plain that we cannot have forty or fifty 
Etons or Rugbys. Greatjendowments, a full supply 
of distiaguishe'd and experienced masters, suitable 
buildings and appliances, the traditions of perma- 
nence, are not the growth of a day. tVe do 
not need, at present, to multiply, to any 
great extent, our schools of the highest 
grade. They are nimaerically almost suflBcient, 
and no mistake can be greater than to divide and 
scatter our force. One thoroughly good school will 
accomphsh far more for Christian education than a 
dozen inferior ones. Your Committee believe that 
the true policy of the Church is to concentrate our 
energy, ability, and endowments upon the institu- 
tions which we have, and which already have se- 
cured a measure of success, to increase their resources, 
add scholarships, provide them with aU needful ap- 
pliances, and thus make them, so far as we can do 
it, strong and permanent. If the Church provides 
the best schools for training the young, though they 
be comparatively few, they will always be full to 
overflowing, and the Church will be the gainer 
thereby. 

There is need, however, especially in Dioceses 
where the Church is feeble, of a much larger pro- 
vision for Christian Education which shall be within 
the reach of the great body of the people. The va- 
rious religious denominations, the Roman Catholic 
in particular, have established cheap boarding 
schools in large numbers, which draw in the sons 
and daughters of the less wealthy classes — that is, 
the large majority of the people, the classes which, 
in this land, supply our leading men in Chm^ch and 
State. For such schools we must depend principal- 
ly upon endowments and scholarships at least in the 
beginning, and they must be administered by per- 
sons who have devoted their hves to the work not 
for gain, but simply and solely to advance the inter- 
ests of the Kingdom of Christ in this world. 

n. SUPPLY OF TEACHERS. 

One gi-eat difliculty in the way of providing 
schools which can do the Church's wK)rk at a moder- 
ate cost, arises from the very inadequate supply of 
competent teachers, male and female, who make 
teaching their calling with the true motive. Many 
can be found who will undertake to impart instruc- 
tion for a high salary. Many young men fresh 
from college, without experience, are willing to 
teach a year or two in order that they may obtain 
means of support while studying for a profession. 
But there are very few who " consecrate their best 
years and their highest powers and their imdivided 
energy to this service, meaning to teach earthly 
things in such a spirit that those entrusted to their 
care may be led toward heavenly things; who in 
this work expect a bare support, looking for other 
recompense than the world can give. And yet these 
are the teachers the Church needs, men and women 
of superior ability and cultui'e who have learned in 
theii' daily toil to keep steadily in view the eternal 
results. How shaU this want be supplied ? There 
are one or two suggestions which your Committee 
would make in answer to this question. 

Many men and women are employed at present in 



' schools, academies, and colleges which have no con- 
nection with the Church. Their experience and 
scholarship, if caUed to the same work under the 
higher auspices, would be of great value. There 
might be also a far greater use of woman's help in 
this field of labor. Many a cultivated ^roman would 
give her time and talents to teaching if the way 
were opened to her, and she were called by the 
proper authorities to the work. The heads of 
schools and colleges should be m-ged to keep this 
j deficiency in mind, and to direct their efforts to- 
; ward providmg well-trained men and women wJio 
will enter upon teaching with enthusiasm as their 
mission for life. 

But the great want will not be met until some 
method of organization be adopted, such as brother- 
i hoods or sisterhoods, whose members make teaching 
! theii' special work, and who therefore cultivate the 
1 teaching faculty' and acquire all the branches of use- 
} ful learning in order to do Christ's work for the 
: young, under the direction and at the call of their 
j Bishops and Pastors. And while an organized work 
seems to be the only one likely to meet our necessi- 
ties, and while the religious motive is the only one 
powerful enough to draw men and women to such 
work for the best years of their lives, it should be 
borne in mind that the truths of the Gospel, 
and the Cathohc faith, as this Church hath re- 
ceived the same, have strength and vitality suf- 
ficient to f m-nish motive and method to such associa- 
tions without exaggerations or additions in doctrine 
I or practice — and without boiTOwing distinctive 
I dress, nomenclatui'e, or usages, from the Church of 
I Rome. In some of the schools or colleges at pres- 
I ent belonging to us, such associations migbt be de- 
I veloped — teaching orders — Brothers of the Christian 
j Doctrine — Sisters of the Holy Childhood — composed 
i of men and women of sound judgment, moral force, 
I thorough education, patient and winning ways, who 
I would ask for no higher work than to train the 
! minds and mould the characters of the young in ac- 
■ cordance with the gracious teachings of the Church, 
1 and with the sanction of, and in loyal submission 
! to, the authority of those who are*^ rulers in the 
j same. 

1 COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. 

In regard to coUegiate education, we ask, Ought 
the Church to provide this, or are our youth to pur- 
sue their higher studies, Uberal and scientific, in in- 
i stitutions which are under no religious influence, or 
I such as is adverse to Church principles ' If it is 
: worth while to have our own colleges at all — if we 
j hold that religion is the foundation of all knowledge 
— then it is clear that there is a great failure of duty 
I among Churchmen. Noble work has been done and 
I is now going forward in the few colleges which we 
I can call our own ; but the popular current sets the 
\ other way, and there is a lack among ourselves of 
: cordial support of these institutions. This is 
i proved by the small nimiber of undergradu- 
ates which they contain, and the dispropor- 
tion between the endowments and other 
resources of our colleges and the great work which 
they have in hand. It is not possible for a few 
earnest and able men to perform this work alone. 
They need the hearty and consistent support of all 
intelligent Churchmen, In nine Colleges belonging to 
or under the influence of the Church, the whole 
number of undergraduates is only 543. In the 
same number of Colleges other than Church Colleges, 
there are 418 Churchmen. In one Nevr England Col- 
\ lege, under Congregational influence, there are 65 
Chm-chmen ; and in a single University in the State 
of New York, which disclaims any theological bias, 
there are 90. These facts are significant. If educa- 
; tion without the Gospel is unblest, and if the Church 
i is the true educator, the witness and keeper of all 



284 



truth, secular as well as religious, then a grievous 
wrong is committed by Churchmen when they 
divert the patronage and gifts which ought 
to go to our own colleges to those institutions 
which are out of our control, and in some cases 
under no religious influence of any kind. While 
we call the attention of oui- brethren to the great 
mistake of not patronizing and cherishing our own 
colleges, we would at the same time earnestly en- 
force the reasonable duty of making our own schools 
and colleges so perfectly fitted to afford the very 
best training, that they may justly claim support on 
this ground alone. 

There is another point of great importance in 
connection with this subject to which the Com- 
mittee would call your attention. 

In most of our old institutions the course of 
studies has been changed or enlarged, chiefly on 
account of the rapid advance in science and inven- 
tion. In some, scientific schools have been added 
with a distinct programme, mainly in physical 
science and practical art. In these scientific and 
technological schools, the physical and practical, 
being of visible utility, threaten to drown out 
the aesthetical and ethical, and ardent young men 
longing to take their places and use their arms in 
the great arena of life pursue the attractive and 
immediately applicable courses. Thus the old moral 
teachings are brought to the test of physical experi- 
ment. Some of the most skilful teachers of physics 
sneer at the Bible, and while we may hope the dan- 
ger is far less in those institutions which are under 
the control of the Church, still even in these we 
must be on our guard against the drift of the age. 
What we need in all our colleges is dble Christian 
professors. In our chairs of moral science, includ- 
ing Christian ethics and Christian evidences, men 
au courant with the advance of physical science, 
able to expose every falsehood and fallacy, to 
answer all the questions of enquiring youth, and 
to set forth and defend the ground of their faith 
to their students with the help of science itself. 
The first question to be asked in regard to every 
applicant for the post of professor, tutor, or master 
in any Church institution should be this : Is he a 
devout Christian man in his belief and practice ? 
No literary or scientific qualification can possibly 
compensate for the lack of Christian influence, ex- 
ample, and precept. 

It would be well if those who are actually en- 
gaged in the work of Church education could meet 
from time to time and confer together on the above 
and kindred subjects. It seems to your Committee 
that there ought to be in each Diocese a committee 
on Christian education, appointed by its Convention, 
to whom the promotion of this cause should be es- 
pecially entrusted, and to whom persons in the Dio- 
cese, engaged in the work of teaching, or desirous 
of engaging in it, could be referred by t]ie Bishop. 
With these Diocesan Committees, this Committee, 
if a Standing Committee of the General Convention, 
could communicate in preparing future I'epoi'ts, and 
thus a full view could be more readily obtained 
and presented to the Church, of the present and 
prospective condition of her educational work. 

In regard to the immeasurable importance of 
Christian education your Committee are of one 
mind. The heart and conscience of the Church 
need to be quickened that our duty to our own 
baptised youth— and to the youth of this land— may 
be performed to the utmost of our powers ; that the 
downward tendencies of a godless education, world- 
liness, and vice and infidelity, may be stayed, and 
that, exercising in full faith the "Divine instru- 
mentalities committed to our trust," our sons 
may grow up as the young plants, and that our 
daughters may be as the polished corners of the 
Temple. 



Your Committee would recommend the adoption 

of the following resolutions : 

"Resolved, That the members of the Church be 
again most earnestly reminded of their sacred duty 
to uphold the schools and colleges which are under 
Church direction and i3ifl.uence." 

" Resolved, That it be i-ecommended to every Di- 
ocese to appoint a Standing Committee of Christian 
Education, which may communicate with this Com- 
mittee of the General Convention, collect the sta- 
tistics of Church education, and of other educational 
work in the Diocese, and adopt such measures as 
may be most feasible for supplying, teachers and for 
promoting the efiiciency and permanence of our own 
institutions." 

Resolved, That the Joint Committee on Christian 
Education he continued, that they may have time 
to deliberate and mature a Report on Education, to 
be presented at the next General Convention, which 
may prove of service in the further consideration 
of the subject." 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

Rev. HENRY A. COIT, d.d. 
Rev. CHAS. MINNIGERODE, b.d. 
Rev. ALDERT SMEDES, d.d. 
Rev. GEORGE BECKETT, d.d. 
Rev. EDWIN E. JOHNSON. 
Rev. GILES A. EASTON. 
Mr. NATHANIEL H. R. DAWSON. 
Mr. HENRY COPPEE, ll.d. 
Mr. CHARLES J. JENKINS, ll.d. 
Mr. ISAAC ATWATER. 

The resolutions reported were adopted unani- 
mously. 

j SPANISH PRAYER-BOOK. 

Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York, from 
I the Special Committee to report a version of the 
I Book of Common Prayer in Spanish, submitted the 
I following report : 

" The Joint Committee appointed at the last Gene- 
i ral Convention to report a version of the Book of 
j Common Prayer in the Spanish language ask leave 
to report : 

"That although, owing to the fact that the mem- 
I bersof the Committee were so widely scattered, any 
joint action has been a matter of considerable diffi- 
j culty, yet the proposed version has been begun on 
the basis of an existing version, and some progress 
has been made. The Committee therefore ask to be 
continued. 

"(Signed) J. WILLIAMS, 

H. POTTER, 
W. D. WILSON, 
BENJ. STARK." 
Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. I 
i merely wish to remark that, in consequence of the 
i fact stated in the repoi't, but little progress has 
' been made, not so much as it might have been 
expected would be accomplished. I am now happy 
I to state that under a reorganization of the Com- 
\ mittee, and under special arrangements now in our 
; power and at our command, we hope to be able 
I to make a rapid and more satisfactory progress, I 
' move therefore that the Committee be continued, 
i and that the President be instructed to fill vacan- 
I cies on the part of this House. 
I The motion was agreed to. 

! TIME OF PINAL ADJOURNMENT. 

j Rev. Dr. BEERS, of Albany. It seems to me 
that the time has arrived when the matter of the 

1 hour of final adjournment should be agreed upon, 
and in order to elicit the judgment of the House on 

i the subject— 



285 



OFFICE OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

The PRESIDENT. The time has come for the 
special order of the day fixed for 11 o'clock— the re- 
port in regard to the baptismal service. 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. I ask the 
Secretar3' to read the report. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

" The Committee on Canons have had under cai-e- 
ful consideration the Memorials coming from more 
than five hundred of the clergy of this Church, and 
a very large number of vestries and other lajrmen, 
together with the nearly unanimous action of one of 
the largest Dioceses, praying for some relaxation 
of the Rubrics in the Office for Infant Baptism, as 
granted in a former age in case of the Apostles' 
Creed, which tended to the peace of the Church, 
without altering its doctrine or perceptibly its 
practice. 

"In view of the number and character of the peti- 
tioners, it is deemed reasonable at least, if not their 
due, that their petitioTi should be so far responded 
to as to put it in the power of the G-eneral Conven- 
tion to extend the desired relief, if in its judgment 
the best interests of the Church should so require. 

" The Committee, therefore, without being under- 
stood to pledge any of its members upon the vote 
thereon, do submit for the action of the House the 
following resolutions : 

" 1. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That it be, and hereby is, proposed to add as a 
Rubric at the end of the Office for Infant Baptism 
the words following, viz. : 

"The minister may, at his discretion, omit the 
exhortation preceding the Lord's Prayer in the 
above Office, and in place of the Thanksgiving sub- 
stitute the Collect for Easter Even. This Rubric, 
however, is not to be construed as implying any 
change in the doctrine of the Church. 

"2. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the Secretary of the House of Deputies cause 
the proposed Rubric to be made known to the Dio- 
ceses, as required by the Constitution and Can«ns." 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. It wiU be ob- 
served, Mr. President— and I wish to call special at- 
tention to it — that no proposition is made to change 
anything at the present time, or to change the doc- 
trine of the Prayer-Book at all. It is only asked 
that this subject be referred to the Dioceses to be 
acted upon three years hence ; and it is also to be 
understood that no man commits himself to the 
final vote, because as in 185(5, when at the request 
of a number of parties a proposition for the estab- 
lishment of an appellate court was asked for by its 
friends, to be referred to the next General Conven- 
tion, it was done almost by unanimous consent, 
whereas in 1859 that proposition failed by a very 
large majority. It may be so in the present case. 
No man asserts anything by voting for this present 
proposition. That is understood in the Committee 
on Canons, and I am perfectly willing and desire 
that it should be so understood by the House. 

If this were a new subject, it would be easily 
disposed of. But, unfortimately, it is an old sub- 
ject, and not only an old subject, but one productive 
of controversy, voluminous, protracted and intense 
beyond anything which has plagued the Church 
since the Reformation. 

In fact, no part of the Church Catholic has been 
so much disturbed by the question of Baptism as 
ours has been. The Greek, Roman Catholic and 
Non-Episcopal churches are all at peace among 
themselves respecting it, while we are in perpetual 
strife, as we have long been, and the prospect any- 
thing but encouraging ; and all growing out of the 
peculiar structure of our office for Infant Baptism. 

A venerable clergyman, to whom General Conven- 
tions have long been indebted for learning and wis- 



dom in council, said to me a few months ago: "I am 
old and shall not live to attend more than one more 
General Convention, but such is my conviction of the 
hindrance which this office has proved to our Church, 
that I cannot leave the Church or leave the world 
without leaving upon record in some shape or other 
my testimony respecting it;" and but for sickness 
which precedes the end he would have been here to- 
day at the head of the Deputation from Pennsyl- 
vania, and you would have been listening to his 
voice instead of mine. Would to God I were able 
to speak as he would have spoken, and if I ever 
coveted abifities with which nature has not endow- 
ed me it is in pleading before you a cause which is 
so intimately connected with the prosperity of the 
Church of our common love. 

Coming before us in its present shape, at the in- 
stance of one of the largest Dioceses — the historic 
Diocese in which the Church was first planted in 
this country — a Diocese acting in its official capa- 
city by a vote of its Convention of one hundred and 
fifty (including both its Bishops) to fourteen, yet 
withal so conservative and with such careful re- 
gard even to the prejudices of others, as you have 
heard. This alone, I am confident, will ensure for 
it here the most respectful consideration. 

But this is not all. Petitions of like tenor are be- 
fore us from every quarter of the Church ; which, 
consideiing the number and character of the peti- 
tions, have not been equalled by any hitherto pre- 
sented to this body. 

In an experience of a quarter of a century in this 
House, no one thing has been asked of it which, in 
my judgment, could be granted with so little sacri- 
fice on the part of any, and which at the same time 
would be received with so much thankfidness and 
do so much good. 

Nothing could prove such an end of controversy^, 
nothing so arrest a spreading discontent within aiid 
disarm assailants from without, and promote a 
hearty union among om-selves for the work to which 
the Lord has called us, as the granting by the major- 
ity, or supposed majority, the consideration now 
asked of it for the minority, or supposed minority, 
so far exceeding in numbers and power its propor- 
tionate representation here. 

And what reasons can there be against granting 
the liberty desired i If any ask what reasons 
there be for it, I can answer that question in a man- 
ner which no man can misunderstand. 

It is desired by three classes. The first class con- 
sists of those who believe that now the word "re- 
generate," when it occurs in the Baptismal office, 
teaches a doctrine contrary to the Word of God, 
and therefore their conscience is sore distressed in 
using it; which I take as evidence, not of a weak 
conscience, but of a strong conscience ; for it is a 
weak conscience which either does not concern 
itself about such questions, or which can pronounce 
as the mouthpiece of the Church, yet which per- 
sonally it believes to be false. 

And though I do not belong to this class, I hold 
that their petition ought to be granted ; for it is a 
great hardship and wrong either to enforce or enact 
a law compelling men upon pain of extrusion from 
the ministry, to say that which they believed to be 
contrary to the will of God, unless it can be shovm 
not only that they have mistaken the will of God, 
but also that the enforced word is essential to a 
valid baptism, which no man pretends; and if the 
Broad Church party will confine itself to points like 
that, it is bound, sooner or later, to prevail. 

The second class consists of those who have no 
difficulty about reconciling the office to Scripture, 
being able as they conceive to demonstrate that the 
hypothetical theory of its interpretation is the true 
one, as in the case of the Burial office, but are yet 
strenuous for its revision, or some legal relaxation in 



286 



its use, on account of its extreme liability to perver- 
sion, as its whole history shows. 

This liability to perversion six out of tlie seven of 
the principal schools of interpretation (or five of the 
six, if my generous opponent from Wisconsin prefers 
it), are forced to admit, holding as they do, that each 
of the seven except its own has, in point of fact, 
perverted it ; or, though honestly trying to find the 
true meaning, have not been able. It is on this 
ground that I am so strongly with the petitioners, 
not only because it has been made to teaeli error so 
extensively (as it did not for at least the first half 
century of its history), but of late more than ever. 

Tlie leader of the Romish party in England, Dr. 
Pusey, says of the regeneration effected by baptism, 
"Xo'change of heart or of the affections, no repen- 
tance, however radical, no faith, no love, came up 
to the idea of this birth from above. It is the crea- 
tion of a new heart, new affections, new desires," 
etc. — a statement more bold and contrary to the 
Bible than I can find in any Roman Catholic writer 
— and yet he declares for himself and party in these 
and other extreme opinions, " We have .made our 
way by the Prayer-Book. " 

This of course we believe they have not done ho- 
nestly; but I do not wish to be ever disentangling the 
web of sophistry by which such monstrous conclu- 
sions are reached, but which are being continually 
circulated among our people. 

I do not wish, when using the Baptismal Ofiice, 
now being moi-e generally scrutinized and censured 
than ever, to be obliged to explain as if there were 
two kinds of regeneration, or read the Bisliops' De- 
claration, or notice the fallacious distinction re- 
cently set up in theology, between being begotten 
of the Spirit and being born of the Spirit, in order 
tliat our Church may not be unjustly censured. 

And I trust no one will think it a sufficient an- 
swer to this objection to say that the Bible may be 
perverted too, instituting a parallel between the 
unalterable and perfect work of God with the im- 
perfect and alt3erable work of man. It is no answer 
at all, but only an evasion. The class petitioning 
for liberty on these gromids is numerous and daily 
increasing. 

The third class consists of those holding different 
theories themselves, yet believe the request of the 
petitioners, upon one ground or another, to be rea- 
sonable, and ought to be granted — an example of 
Christian charity which, if genei-ally followed, and 
working both ways, would be the forerunner of 
peace throughout all our borders, 

W e come, then, to these objections or supposed 
objections. What are they ^ One will have no 
change without regard to what change may be pro- 
posed, but simply for no change's sake, and calls it 
conservatism. 

I must say that I sympathize with this party. It 
is not common with old Conservatives of my time 
of life to desire change. But upon a question like 
this history and common sense are entitled to a hear- 
ing. 

There was an antecedent probability touching all 
works of this sort, that in the course of time they 
would require change. 

Lord Bacon, and every philosopher of note, recog- 
nizes this principle. And there is no human com- 
position extant, except the Prayer-Book, so volumi- 
nous and covering so many subjects, civil or eccle- 
siastical, having the force of law, which has not 
within three hundred years been changed again and 
again to keep pace with altered facts or other neces- 
sities, and none has suffered more from such read- 
justment being too long delayed. 

But even the Prayer-Book has been obliged to 
yield once and again to this necessity. Public 
opinion in England would no longer endure the de- 
nunciatory political prayers of the State services, 



and they were abolished a few years since. The 
Lectionary is lately revised, and there is a general 
demand for a revision of the Rubrics and for shorter 
services, and where this will stop, or ought to stop, 
does not appear and ought not to be asked. God 
has constituted not only the world, but the Church, 
on "its human side, upon the principle of progres- 
sion—not of revolution or of innovation, but of pro- 
gression in its highest and noblest sense, and to fight 
against this principle is to fight against God. And 
surely a glance at the history of the Church will be 
sufficient to establish the proposition. Look at from 
Abraham to David, and from David to the carrying 
away to Babylon, and from the carrying away to 
Babylon to the Advent, and from the Advent to 
this day — ^never stationary — in no two ages alike, 
and yet, as to its essential being, ever in all ages one 
and the same. A true conservatism, if it does not 
yield too soon, does not resist too long. 

No change ! Why, sir, in the apprehensions of 
men the fundamental principles of morals are 
undergoing continual change. 

Look at the Old Testament saints. Look at the 
Fathers of the Church, the great Augustine in- 
cluded, in so many respects "bright patterns of the 
Christian life "—it is impossible to deny the evi- 
dence that, if they did not forge miracles, they en- 
dorsed those which they knew to be forged. They 
had not learned the sin of doing evil that good 
might come. Look at Theodosius, the pride of the 
Church, guilty of crimes which no Turkish Sultan 
would now dream of committing. 

For the indiscriminate murder of 15,000 people, 
men, women, and children, the great St. Ambrose 
was thought a wonder of discipline for suspending 
the Emperor from the Communion for a few Sun- 
days, 

And look at the wars instigated by the Popes of 
Rome, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, 
Antioch, and Jerusalem, as wicked in their inception 
and as savage in their conduct as any ever waged 
by Goths and Vandals. 

change ! How long since persecution unto 
death for opinion's sake was thought necessary by 
the best of men ? 

And much later still — two generations after the 
Prayer-Book was made — see the head of the Church, 
in the person of James I., helping to torture, with 
his own hand, a wretched victim of superstition, 
whom he charged with raising a tempest by which 
he was near being drowned on his return from Den- 
mark. 

And thousands all over Europe, after horrible tor- 
tures, were executed for witchcraft according to 
the then reigning public opinion, shared in by the 
great and good Chief Justice Hale, the sainted Bax- 
ter, and the last revisers of the Prayer-Book. All 
agreed that such executions were necessary — Catho- 
lic and Protestant, Churchman and Puritan. They 
were all in darkness. 

Such was the Church in this thing, and at so 
recent a day; and there is no greater error than in 
looking for its perfection in the past instead of the 
future. 

The doctrine, then, of historical development, i.e., 
the development not of truth itself, but of the ap- 
prehension of it in the mind of the Church, is a true 
doctrine, and must go on until creeds and offices. 
Canons and Rubrics, touching faith and morals, doc- 
trine, and discipline, shall perfectly coincide with 
Holy Scripture. 

And surely our Ritualistic brethren will not ob- 
ject to change upon the score of principle, for 
they are compelled to go much further, and 
hold, with Mr. Newman, to objective development, 
or the power of the Church to develop the body 
of truth itself, which though, as Mr. Newman 
foresaw, is a far safer basis on which to 



287 



found the pretensions of Rome as it is, than the 
doctrine of " stability," viz., that their whole sys- 
tem is contained in the Bible, yet it is a fearful thing 
to begin with, for by it, once begun in the direction 
taken at Trent, and lojig before, Rome was bound, 
of logical necessity, to land in the blasphemous de- 
cree of 1870. 

But admitting this to be true, the second class ob- 
jects — " I do not want any change or revision of the 
Prayer-Book, and will not hear of it. " But I, for 
one, do not wish you to hear of it. I am as much 
opposed to revision as you are. What is revision ^ 
Our version of the Bible is now being revised ; and 
how ? Chapter by chapter and verse by verse, for 
correction as need shall appear — a work which, in 
the judgment of the most learned, conservative, and 
orthodox of the English world, time had rendered 
absolutely necessary; and yet, for years, what an 
ignorant outcry was raised against it ! 

And has not the Prayer-Book too been revised 
time and again, and in this sense ? Upon its fourth 
or fifth revision in 1662, after the failure of ^the ob- 
structives of the Savoy Conference, the Convocation 
took up the work and made some six hundred alter- 
ations [so says Dr. Blakeney; I have not verified the 
statement], most of them small and for the letter, 
but some of them very important, and leaving the 
book on the whole more Protestant than it was be- 
fore. And it is no more than just to those revisers 
to say that, little qualified as some of them were for 
their office, they never dreamed that their work was 
to be final, or that they were fixing formularies for 
all time, but distinctly contemplated future revisions 
as likely to become necessary. *♦ 

And pray what has been the history of all Church 
formularies from the beginning but a liistory of revi- 
sion, from the three Creeds in their rudimentary state 
which through centuries were revised again and 
again, and never ceased to be revised so long as any 
doubt about their meaning remained, and their ob- 
ject was secured. 

But revision is not asked for, and no man is more 
opposed than I am to opening the book to any com- 
mission for that purpose. If any man or party have 
a proposition to make, let it come up singly and 
upon its own merits ; and, after suitable time for re- 
flection, I shall be ready to vote upon it. If in favor of 
it, it will be because I think it just and reasonable, 
and that it ought to be conceded. If against it, it 
will be because, upon its own merits, I think it 
ought not to be granted, and not from the pusillani- 
mous apprehension of " entering wedges," and be- 
cause, if granted, something else may possibly be 
asked, holding myself ready to consider such possi- 
ble thing in the same way, without being so 
afraid of doing harm as not to do good. 

The Diocese of Virginia does not ask a single line 
of the Prayer-Book to be changed. Nor does any 
one. The Diocese of Virginia only asks liberty for 
those who desire it to omit a word, not essential to 
a valid baptism, which has never settled anything, 
never will settle anything, and everybody knows 
it, and which all experience shows had better be left 
optional. 

But the third class replies : "This is the very 
thing which I will not grant." But why, I ask, 
in the name of all that is reasonable and kind — 
why ? How can you defend yourself as towards 
your brethren for such refusal, unless it can be 
shown that in some way or other a revealed doc- 
trine about Infant Baptism would be injured by any 
concession whatever from the particular form now 
in use ? And if so, what doctrine is it ? Can any 
one teU ? — ^f or there is certainly no agreement about 
it. 

In the first place, what does the word "regene- 
rate" mean in the "Service"? I say, a moral 
change. The Catechism settles that question: "A 



] death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness ' 
j — for can there be "a death unto sin and a new 
j birth unto righteousness " without a moral change ? 
, No wonder that those who, forced by the exigen- 
I cies of their theories, must try to make some dis- 
i tinction between them, resort to subtleties which 
j confuse the minds of their readers and their own. 
Not only the Prayer-Book uses the word "re- 
generation" in the sense of a moral change, but the 
Homilies, Hooker, and nearly every great writer, 
until about the opening of the eighteenth century ; 
so that W aterland and others, who charge the iden- 
tification of regeneration with a moral change 
upon the Puritans, are themselves chargeable with 
the novelty, as so clearly shown in the latest and 
most elaborate work written upon the Prayer- 
Book. 

But as to this regeneration actually taking place 
in or by baptism, this is supposed or a hypothesis, 
like the faith which the infant (not the sponsor) 
by hypothesis professes. So that faith and regener- 
ation as antecedeut and consequent go together in 
the Prayer-Book as in Scripture, and all is well. 

But no, says a learned divine, writing to me 
a few days ago, " there are objections to that 
theory of interpretation. I see flaws in it." 
"I admit it" (was my reply), "and you 
can attack it if you please, but beware how 
you set up one of your own. The difference 
between you and me is this — you see flaws in my 
theory which I admit, and I see chasms in yours 
which you deny." But what kind of a change is 
it which the Office " determines ?" A moral change ? 
No, say the Bishops, which is undoubtedly true, and 
as great a step in the direction of peace as it was of 
truth. The truth is, the office is not entirely con- 
sistent with itself on any theory of interpre- 
tation, as the advocates of each do vir- 
tually confess by their labors to reduce 
the more stubborn parts to harmony. That there 
is some ambiguity must be admitted by all who have 
followed its conduct through the English courts of 
law. We admit that the book as a whole is imper- 
fect, but insist that each particular part is just as it 
should be, giving occasion to the taunt of the Ro- 
manist — "Our Church cannot err — yours never 
does." 

Nor is this the worst of it — each gloss put upon 
the Office becomes a glass through which the beholder 
looks at Scripture, seeing meanings in texts 
which, but for his theory, never would have been 
thought of. How has Scripture suffered at the 
hands of theorists ! What sad woi"k of it is made — 
e.g., by Mr. Sadler. So we see thousands led to be- 
lieve that the Bible teaches unconditional reproba- 
tion, de a7-bUrio, because the Westminster Confes- 
sion rules, Rom. ix., to teach that doctrine. 

So it is that the compulsory use of this Office — 
word for word — is becoming more and more a 
stumbhng block. As to the fact, no man can fail to 
see it or how it works. Let me illustrate : A man builds 
a fine residence, but by some means or other a big 
stone is left in the road leading to it, which, after a 
while, becomes a stone of stmnbling and rock of 
offence. Complaints are made ; but the pro- 
prietor is conservative, and will not allow 
it to be removed. And when accidents occur 
he says, ' ' Go over it, or go round it, but it shall not 
be removed. " Accidents becoming more numerous, 
he says, "Put up sign-boards." Then, "hang up 
lights about it, " when each for his personal safety 
hangs up his own; and there are red lights, green 
lights, blue lights — when in the confusion 
which ensues there are more accidents than 
ever. The proprietor is entreated and remonstrated 
with — What good has come of this stone ? How 
much better other proprietors get on who have no- 
thing of the sort! He only gets angry, and becomes 



288 



more conservative than before. But finally another 
occupant comes into possession, and takes away 
stone, sign-boards, lights, and all. The trouble is 
ended, and the former proprietor only gets into 
history — a case for metaphysical philosophers to cite 
in proof of their theories. 

So of this Baptismal Office. Look at its explainers, 
and see, have they not made a work of it ? See the 
numerous and conflicting guides who offer them- 
selves to its understanding, crying, " Lo here, and 
lo there ! " — the lights hung up. I see divers here 
who have hung them up. I have hung up one; 
our Chairman, I think, two. The Bishops hung 
up a great light, a very Drammond, casting 
its beams far and wide, and showing — what ? In 
their opinion upon a single point, what is not — some- 
thing to be mdeed thankful for — but upon no point 
what is. 

Meanwhile controversies and loss go on increasing. 
In Baptist neighborhood, which aboimd in the South 
shrewd disputants get hold of the Office, om^ people 
are unable to answer them, become unsettled in 
their minds, and decline to have their children bap- 
tized at all. This too is the initial point at which 
the work of secession has begun. A Bishop tells me 
that he has never known one to be perverted by this 
means, but unf ortmiately I have. I know these men 
better than the Bishop does. 

One of the greatest minds in the country left our 
ministry solely on account of the Baptismal Office, 
as I had it from his own mouth, and confirmed by 
Bishop Mcllvaine, who displaced him. 

Speaking of Bishop Mcllvaine, it was at his ear- 
nest request that I attended the Radical Conference 
at Chicago some years ago. The burden of debate 
was this Baptismal Office. 

I had a long argument with one to whom the 
Bishop was much attached, an humble-minded, de- 
vout man, born in the Church, but in vain. He 
said when he came to the words "seeing now that 
this child regenerate, " he could not pronounce them. 
He admitted the hypothesis, but said it was not un- 
derstood, and that, in point of fact, error was taught. 
He went out, and it was with sorrow of heart on 
both sides that a man was deposed with whom 
the Bishop wished his soul to be gathered ; but the 
law gave no chance — so it was supposed. The 
modest man gave no trouble of a trial. The Bishop 
was then in conflict with the Romanizers in his Dio- 
cese, who watched for his halting in discipline. The 
result was that he v/hoheld cordially all the Church's 
real doctrine went out, while those who were hostile 
to it staid in. 

In Illinois, both parties happened to be of a differ- 
ent temper, but we aU know that the sole trouble 
there was alsout this Office. Take the other seceders. 
I know well those of them who have given most 
character to the movement, and in every case it was 
this Office, and this alone, which started them. 

Will any one then say, taking the whole case into 
review, that there is no evil accruent to call for 
any relaxation, as asked by the petitioners ? Are 
there indeed no serious disputes, no ecclesiastical 
trials, depositions, actions of councils, actions of 
the nine Bishops, and declarations of them all ? 

I believe if this decla.ration could have been is- 
sued five years ago and appended to the Office, put 
upon a candlestick where it could be seen, and the 
liberty now asked have been granted, the agitation 
of the past year would never have taken place. But 
a break having been made, if all relaxation in this 
direction is refused, and nonconformists promptly 
punished, can any one say that no further or more 
extensive disaffection will ensue ? Some say, "Let 
them go — ^who cares ? " I, for one, care most 
deeply. 

But one says, if you attempt to stop the Ritual- 
istSj or even grant this relaxation, they will secede. 



I To this answer, nothing better could happen to us. 

1 They do not love our Church. The leaders say 
they do not just so far as it is Protestant, and 
nothing can make them love it or submit to its dis- 
cipline. 

When charged with this even by High Church- 
I men, they become angry. But when charged with 
the same by Roman Catholics, nay, with dishonesty, 
i in cutting sarcasm, for retaining their place, they 
I submit to their insults with a meekness which is 
truly edifying. The sooner therefore they leave, 
: the better it will be for the Protestant Church ; 

better for their own salvation, 
j On the whole, with this petition granted and the 
negative pregnant of the Bishops, we have the best 
practicable settlement of the question, unless, m- 
deed, the Office could be recast in simpler form, in- 
volving no theory and capable of no theory about 
the effect of baptism upon, the soul of an infant. 
Children would then be'just as effectually and more 
generally baptized, and then Waterland and Goode, 
PhiUpots and Gorham, and Pusey, and Mozley, and 
i Blakeriey, with a thousand lesser tractates, "I heln- 
t carnation and New Birth," " Birth and New Birth," 
with the " Seven Theories," might be consigned to 
the catacombs of literature — for in so far as they un- 
dertake to propound any theory of the effect of 
baptism upon the soul of an infant, they have no 
connection with Scripture, even by the most atten- 
uated thread of inference, and are a mass of specu- 
lation. 

But this controversy off our hands, with the noble 
and unprecedented work accomphshed in this Con- 
vention of 1874, ever to be memorable m the history 
of the Church, we can give all our energies to the 
work of eva,ngelization, and united endeavors to 
arrest the tide of corruption, perjury, and fraud 
setting in upon the political and commercial world, 
threatening the dissolution of society, and this in 
presence of the Church sittmg in grave debate up- 
on genuflections and colored stoles ( but now — de- 
voutest thanks to God— no longer) when called 
with trumpet-voice from heaven to bring the moral 
powers of the Gospel to bear down upon the king- 
dom of sin, Satan, and death. 

In summing up for the petitioners, allow me to say 
that it seems reasonable that their prayer should be 
granted — 

1. As an act of Christian charity to so many in the 
I Church, than whom none know more of it, are more 
j devoted to it, or have done more for it, unless it 
can be shown to be against some part of the Bible 
I doctrine of Infant Baptism. 

i 2. Because that, in point of fact, this Office has to so 
I great an extent failed to teach what its framers m- 
1 tended it to teach, and has proved available for 
j teaching so much which certainly they did not in- 
[ tend it to teach, and because without the proposed 
I relaxation in its use it is manifest to all observers of 
i the current of controversy^ it will become more and 
I more a stumbling block " and occasion to fall in a 
1 brother's way — on the one hand into a schism, on 

the other into erroneous and strange doctrines con- 
'[ trary to God's Word — insomuch that, m view of the 

vv hole case, the duty as well as the wisdom of the 
I Church could not be plainer if a voice were heard 

from Heaven saying, take up the stumbling block 

out of the way of my people. 
I close as I began. I ask that this may at least 
I be referred to the Church, to be considered for three 
I years. Then will be time enough for the final ar- 
i gument and final vote, aud no man in the meantime 
I need be troubled. I can hardly doubt the result. I 

look in the eye of my brother from Wisconsin [Rev. 

Dr. Adams], and I feel that he too will accede to 

this request. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. By no means. 
[The time to which speeches are limited having 



289 



arrived during the delivery of the remarks of Eev. 
Dr. Andi-ews, his time was, on motion, extended.] 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Mr. President— 
I have asked the opportunity at an early stage of 
this debate to present you my own individual 
views. As a member of the Committee on Canons, 
I was not present in the Committee when the matter 
was discussed and finally voted on, the result of 
which vote was the presentation of the report which 
has been read to you. If I had been present, I 
should have there voted against it for the reasons 
which I shall proceed, briefly as I can, to give you. 

I do not intend to discuss the questions which have 
been raised before you theologically. I wish to say 
nothing with regard to the Baptismal Service in it- 
self, even to give you what my own opinion upon 
it is as a matter of doctrine. I am afraid, in the 
presence of so many learned theologians, and of 
some from whom I have been accustomed to receive 
the doctrine of the Church, to discuss theology, for 
fear that I might find myself talking heresy before 
I knew it. 

But this question, as it is now before us, is a prac- 
tical one ; and the first objectiion which I have to the 
measure is that the whole report is founded, as I 
think, upon a fallacy, which is, that this Convention, 
without approving a proposition, may present it for 
final agreement to a succeeding General Conven- 
tion. I utterly disagree with any such principle. 
I beheve that if we act upon such a principle we 
shall not be true to our constitutional duty. The 
Constitution, if it means anything, prescribes that 
before an alteration shall be made in the Prayer- 
Book, it shall have the approval of two Gene- 
ral Conventions, and we have no right to shirk 
the question in the fiii-st General Convention, and 
say, " Instead of approving this, we will throw the 
whole responsibility on the next General Convention, 
and let them have the right, by a single vote, to 
change the Prayer-Book which has been entrusted to 
us as a sacred trust" ; and therefore, if I were in favor 
of this proposition, I would vote for it ; but, as I am 
opposed to it, with the lights which are now before 
me, I shall vote against it ; and I think it the duty 
of every member of this House, when this proposi- 
tion is placed before him, to vote either "yea" or 
" nay," according as he approves or disapproves the 
proposed change. 

The next objection which I have to the proposi- 
tion in itself is that it is not asked for by the persons 
whose consciences appear to be affected by the use 
of this phrase. It is asked for, as I understand, by 
sympathizing brethren who wish to remove a cause 
of offence to others who are weaker than themselves. 
If we had here a petition from certain clergymen 
who say that they cannot use that Baptismal 
Service conscientiously, that if it be insisted on by 
the Church, if we conclude persistently to keep it 
there, they will have to leave the Church, it would 
present a very different question, especially if they 
added, which I think they would not add, that if 
this change be made they will then remain 
loyal and faithful to the Prayer-Book, and ac- 
cept all else that it contains ex animo and ex 
corde. Now, we have no such proposition pre- 
sented to us. We have simply a petition from a 
most respectable number of our clergymen and lay- 
men asking for this relief, as the most of them will 
tell you, for others than themselves. We have yet 
to hear of a single individual who comes here and 
says, "I cannot use that myself conscientiously"; 
and, therefore, believing as I do that the 
adoption of this change wiU not produce 
the effect which is claimed for it, that 
it will be simply an entering wedge to a demand for 
other changes, and that if we go on as we are now 
beginning we shall not have the Prayer-Book just 
as the Reformed Church adopted it, agreeing to 



to the conscientious convictions of these 

weaker brethren, I am opposed ab initio and in 
limine to making any change whatever by special 
legislation. 

I That does not mean, however, that I am opposed 
j absolutely to this change. The Committee on 
I Canons have reported, and it has been made the 
order of the day, I believe, for to-day at twelve 
i o'clock, a resolution on the whole question of Ru- 
i brical revision. I supported that with my whole 
! heart. I believe that is the true remedy. I beheve 
! that if a commission take up that question, 
they will undoubtedly take into consideration 
I this proposed change, and I would join in a resolu- 
j tion recommending such change to the consideration 
I of such commission, and let them in their wisdom 
I consider it; and if, as a part of the whole, they can 
recommend it to us for adoption, I do not pledge 
myself now to favor it, but it will certainly receive 
my most careful and deliberate examination, and 
I believe that I should go for it ; but only 
as a part of a whole, for the same 
reason that if this change had been made when our 
Rubrics were estabhshed, I would never go for put- 
ting the clause in as it now stands, but I would leave 
it as I found it, just as I am disposed to leave it as I 
find it now until a general Rubrical revision shall 
be made. If we receive the assent of that commis- 
sion to a revision as a whole, and if this is in it, I 
shall, probably, not oppose it. 

But it is said that if we make this change we shall 
prevent a great many from leaving us, just as a 
great many have left us, and that possibly we may 
get back those who have left. Now, if I understand 
anything of the recent movement which was made 
from the Church, it was not from a belief that the 
doctrine of the Church is very wrong, because the 
doctrine is now just as it was when those brethren 
entered the fold, but because they believed 
that though the doctrine was there, yet 
that this Church was drifting in the wrong direc- 
tion. They felt alarmed ; they believed that there 
was so strong a current in this Church of advance- 
ment that they were not safe in remaining here, 
and they had to leave the ship before she sunk ! 
Now, sir, whatever may have been their opinions 
three months ago, or I may almost say 
three days ago, they can with no face now 
come foi'ward and say that this Church 
is drifting in the direction which they said she was. 
Take the two leading votes which have been taken 
in this House since we met, and what do they show ? 
Do they show advanced Ritualism ? I trow not. If 
I it mean anything, it means what I have heard said, 
I that this Church has been bound hand and foot, ana 
handed over to our Low Church brethren. 

But the change is argued for another reason, that 
it is so small a change that it amounts to nothing. 
It is not necessary for me here to remind the gentle- 
men before me that the change of a single letter, an 
iota, showed the difference between the deadliest 
heresy that has ever attacked this Church and the 
orthodox faith, which we now have as 
the heritage which has been handed down 
to us. The danger of the change consists, 
as I said before, in that it is an entering wedge. 
It is special legislation. It is legislating to meet a 
j particular case. When a danger has been shown, 
j when an offence has been committed, when there is 
j reason to apprehend a coming danger, then I am 
j willing to meet it by special legislation ; but when 
j that legislation is simply to meet an idea, not any- 
I thing new, but what, if it exists, has existed 
[ throughout the whole history of the Church, then I 
am opposed to meeting any such danger by special 
! legislation ; but let us meet it, if we can, by that 
i general remedy which this Committee has reported, 
: and which I believe, from the unanimity in which 



it was acceded to in our Committee, will meet with j 
the like unanimity in this House. | 

I believe, Mr. President, I have said all that in i 
the limited time that is allowed I have now to say. I 
I therefore yield the floor. 

Rev. Dr. ' BRECK, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
wish to say in regard to the alleged matter of dis- | 
quiet in this Church, that when I received the j 
postal card that was sent, I suppose, to all the clergy | 
of the Church, I could not but feel in my heart that j 
the three distinguished men who signed that postal 
card, or whose names were attached to it, and put it 
forth, were disquieting the Church much more than 
the Prayer-Book. I felt that they were, with the 
prestige of their position, their age, their names, i 
their ability, sending this out broadcast among j 
the clergy, knowing very well that a large | 
number of the clergy are in an isolated position, 
with but little opportunity to consult with their 
brethren ; and this appeal comes, not that these gen- 
tlemen desire the change for their own comfort, for 
their own happiness, for their own quiet, but they 
desire it because all over the Church there is such a 
feeling of disquiet in using the Baptismal Ser^-ice 
that, therefore, they ask you to put your name to 
this postal card. Now, I maintain that there is no 
Such extensive disquiet throughout the Church 
at all ; it cannot be sustained, for, as 
the gentleman who has just preceded me has very 
well said, the number of names is no evidence of 
this disquiet, as it is termed, and distress over this 
subject. In the last Convention of the Diocese of 
Central Pennsylvania, before this postal card was 

Eut out, the most extreme Low Chm^chman in that 
•iocese, an intimate and beloved friend of mine, 
volunteered, of his own accord, to say to me that he 
was entirely opposed to even an alternate phi'ase in 
the Service for the Baptism of Infants, that he 
felt that if that was allowed it would bring 
discontent and disorder into our parishes. And let 
me ask, if tliis postal card business of disquiet in the 
Church is to go on, and if this General Convention 
is to give it a forward wave through the Church, 
what shall we have before the next General Conven- 
tion? We shall have postal cards sent throughout 
the Church with regard to something else in the 
Prayer-Book. Do we beheve that all disquietude will 
be quieted by the adoption of the plan that is set forth 
in this postal card ^ Has any man in this Church read 
Church history in such a way as to believe that 
there is ever to be peace throughout all the borders 
of the Church ? You may dilute the Prayer Book 
in every possible and conceivable way, and yet 
there will be some point of difference of opinion. 
But suppose the Broad Church party goes on and 
becomes strong and decided in its theology, and 
then postal cards are sent out that "the 
brethren desu'e alterations in certain articles of 
religion, in the Office of the Holy Communion, and in 
other Olfices of the Church, in the Office for the 
Burial of the Dead ; many have come to disbelieve in 
the resurrection of the dead ; many are disquieted ; 
they have become so broad in their views, " what 
are we to do ? Thus, if we give countenance to this 
kind of thing, we shaU give countenance to disquiet- 
ude and distress in the Church. I am for leaving 
this service just as it is in the Prayer-Book. 

Mr. COPPEE, of Central Pennsylvania. I wish 
to recite a few hues, and that is my only speech : 

"Hark, in the lobby hear a lion roar ; 

Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we shut the door ? 
Or, Mr. Speaker, shall we let him in, 
To see how quick we'll turn him out again ?" 

Mr. SHATTUCK; of Massachusetts. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I am not going to make a speech ; but I cannot 
stand here and see the doctrine of Baptismal Re- 
generation put in danger without coming before 



you again as an old Puritan. I was brought up as 
a Puritan, and my ancestors held the doctrine 
of Baptismal Regeneration ; and as I told you be- 
fore, in consequence of giving up Ritualism 
and of giving up Fonts they have lost 
the idea of any Divine grace in the sac- 
raments of the Church, and the consequence 
of that is that baptisms have diminished so decidedly 
in their religion. They think nothing of the prac- 
tice now. I want to attach every" value to the 
grace given in the sacraments, and especially to the 
grace of Baptismal Regeneration. I do not like to 
hear such things said without getting up and bear- 
ing the testimony of my friend and pastor and 
Bishop, Bishop Eastburn. He was utterly op- 
posed to any such change as is now pro- 
posed, and I feel that I am speaking for 
my old friend and pastor when I oppose any 
such change of the Prayer-Book. Where was he 
settled ? He was settled in Boston ; and I do not 
know whether this Convention have ever heard it, 
but they may appreciate it after it is stated, that it 
has been said that Boston was the place where the 
doctrine of Baptismal l^egeneration was the most 
obnoxious, because if by the good providence of 
God a man had been bom in Boston, to ask him to 
be born again was the greatest trial you could put 
him to. [ Laughter]. 

Our good brother from Virginia has told us that 
this doctrine is an offence. Yes, sir, I know it is an 
offence, and so is all baptismal grace, but what does 
St. Paul say ? That he gloried in preaching the 
" Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling 
block, and unto the Greeks foohshness." 
Mr. OTIS, of lUmois. Mr. President- 
Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I move that 
the order appointed for twelve o'clock be postponed, 
and that this discussion go on. 
Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I hope not. 
Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. It seems to 
me very well worth while that a discussion so im- 
portant as this should be prosecuted until we can 
reach its close, which will be perhaps within an 
hour or two, and in the meantime the other matter 
which comes after it in the order of nature can 
come after it in the order of fact. I move, there- 
fore, that the order of the day for twelve o'clock be 
postponed. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. We have had a 
very able opening, and the question has been dis- 
cussed in the Church for a hundred years. If men 
cannot talk their minds on it right off now, they 
cannot in a few hours hence. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. My objection to 
this motion I will state in a word. The order at 
twelve o'clock is the resolution which the Commit- 
tee on Canons reported, proposing that a commis- 
sion be appointed. Being satisfied that this meas- 
ure will be killed, and wanting it kiUed, I think 
if this commission is appointed first, we can 
refer this that is now before us to that commission. 
Therefore, I hope that the debate fixed for twelve 
o'clock to-day will go on : I doubt whether it will 
take many minutes ; and then if the commission is 
raised, it will be competent for some one to move to 
refer this matter to it. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I hope we shall 
continue to discuss in English and not in Welsh. 
[Laughter.] 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. I call for the 
order of the day. 

The PRESIDENT. It wants a minute of the 
time, and I am a Uttle uncertain whether that order 
supersedes this, because both subjects were ap- 
pointed for special hours on the same day. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. One was ap- 
pointed for eleven o'clock, and the other for twelve 
o'clock. I call for the order of the day for twelve 



291 



o'clock, and I think it will facilitate business to act 
on that and then refer the order for eleven o'clock 
to tliis Commission. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Can that motion be made 
when I have the floor ? 

The PRESIDENT. The order of the day is al- 
wavs in order when called for. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. I rise to a 
point of oi-der. Can one special order be super- 
seded by another special order ^ 

The PRESIDENT. That is the question. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. I move that 
the preceding order be laid on the table. 

Mr. "WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I think there is 
a misunderstanding. [Order, order !] 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to lay the pres- 
ent order of the day on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Several Deputies. ' ' Order of the day. " 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The order for 
the day for this House at twelve o'clock is the report 
of the' Committee on Canons, No. 19. That which 
has been before the House is Report No. 18. The 
question was misunderstood. I myself voted to lay 
on the table, imderstanding thereby that Report No. 
18 was laid on the table. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I suggest that we 
ought not to lay the order on the table, but to lay 
the subject under consideration on the table. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Allow me simply 
to state that every order of the day at the hour for 
which it is appointed takes precedence of all subse- 
quently made orders of the day. I understand that 
the order of the day for eleven o'clock was made 
after the order of the day for twelve o'clock. If so, 
the House proceeding to consider its order for eleven 
o'clock when the order for twelve o'clock is called, 
nothing is done with the pending order, but the or- 
der for that hour comes up, as a matter of course. 
If it be disposed of in half an hour or ten 
minutes, then the antecedent order comes in its 
place again, so that no order or motion is necessary 
except to call for the order of the day for twelve 
o'clock, the other order standing in abeyance. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I hope the Chair 
will so inile. 

The PRESIDENT. I do so rule. I submitted 
the parliamentary question to my friend from Vir- 
ginia for his consideration, and I am satisfied he is 
right. Therefore the matter under consideration 
for the past hour is laid aside, and the House pro- 
ceeds to the order fixed for twelve o'clock. 

ARTICLE 4 OF CONSTITUTION. 

A message (No. 59) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced that that House concurred in Message No. 
50 from the House of Deputies, finally ratifying and 
agreeing to the alteration of Aiiiicle IV. of the 
Constitution proposed in the last General Conven- 
tion. 

The PRESIDENT. This amendment to the Con- 
stitution is now adopted by the concurrence of both 
Houses. 

RUBRICAL REVISION. 

The PRESIDENT. The order of the day fixed 
for twelve o'clock to-day is now before the House. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The present 
order of the day is in no respect in my charge from 
the Committee on Canons, but I merely rise to say, 
in confirmation of what has been said by one of my 
colleagues, that I believe that the quickest way to 
dispose of Report No. 18 will be with as much unan- 
imity as possible, if the House is so disposed, to agree 
to the resolution in this Report, No. 19. In respect 
to No. 18, all that I would have to say has been ably 
said by my colleague from Pittsburgh, and I do 
think that the whole object* to be attained in 
connection with these two reports will be accom- 



I plished by raising the commission desired and re- 
I ferring to that commission what has been previous- 
I ly under consideration. 

The SECRETARY read the resolutions reported 
by the Committee on Canons, as follows : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That it is the sense of this Convention that nothing 
in the present Or ier of Common Prayer prohibits 
the separation, when desirable, of the Morning 
Prayer, the Litany, and the Order for the Adminis- 
tration of the Lord's Supper, into distinct services, 
which may be used independently of each other, 
and either of them without the others. Provided, 
that, when used together, they be used in the same 
order as that in which they have commonly been 
used and in which they stand in the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer. 

"2. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That a Joint Commission, consisting of seven Bi- 
shops, seven Presbyters, and seven Laymen, be ap- 
pointed (the Presbyters and Laymen to be chosen 
by ballot in the House of Deputies), to take into 
consideration the whole subject of Rubrical re- 
vision, a.mong other things providing shortened 
and more varied services and a new Lectionary, 
and making such other suggestions as may seem ju- 
dicious with respect to the services and offices of the 
Chm-ch, and to report to the next General Conven- 
tion." 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the first 
resolution. 
Mr. OTIS, of Illinois, obtained the fioor. 
Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. I ask that 
these two resolutions, being entirely distinct, be 
considered separately. You give each one ten min- 
utes to speak, and here ai'e two resolutions, either 
of which might require a quarter of an hour. I 
hope the first resolution will be settled before we go 
to the second. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. The whole report is before 
us. There are grave questions, Mr. President and 
members of the Convention, arising under this pro- 
posed legislation. We have had iu use in this coun- 
try for the last eighty years a Prayer-Book sub- 
stantially the same as the Prayer-Book of the 
Church of England. Our Prayer-Book, I contend, 
was not revised when adopted after the Revolution 
in this country, but we adopted the Prayer-Book of 
the Church of England. Certain light changes were 
made to conform to the civil changes, but in the 
main we adopted the same offices in the same lan- 
guage. The use of this Book has in the 
main worked well. It is true that absolute 
imif ormity has not been secured, and I do not know 
that it is desirable to have absolute uniformity. The 
experience of the Church of England under this 
same Prayer-Book adopted there in 1661, and stand- 
ing without revision for 209 years— mark it, 
standing without revision or change from 1661 to 
1871 — shows you how wonderfully well it has work- 
ed ; and that great Church, from a very small body 
distracted and torn after the revolution under 
Cromwell, has grown to be a great body, with its 
22,000 Presbyters and its 18,000 churches, chapels, 
and hospitals, and great works of charity all over 
England, and extending to all the colonies wher- 
ever the flag of England waves. We have followed 
that same precedent in this country, and for eighty 
years it has worked well. 

Now, it is true a somewhat different view has 
grown up in England, as in this country, in differ- 
ent Dioceses. For instance, it is the positive order 
of the Church of England that the Athanasian 
Creed shaU be read thirteen times in the year, in 
every Church in England, and still there are large 
numbers of chapels and churches in England where 
the Athanasian Creed has not been repeated within 
the memory of any living parishioner. In the days 



292 



of George the Third, in the worship at the Royal 
Chapel, that Creed was so offensive to the old King 
that when it was repeated he closed his book and bow- 
ed his head in silence, and it has ever been said that 
sometimes when that Creed v/as repeated the minis- 
ter paused in the service, and the old King hobbled 
out on his gouty feet and started home. So thei-e 
is a different use in the Church of England, and 
thirty years ago London was convulsed from end to 
end by an order from Bishop Bloomfield ordering 
and directing the reading on all occasions of public 
worship, on Sundays, etc., of the prayer for the 
Church militant. Notwithstanding its use was posi- 
tively ordered in the service, its disuse had grown 
up, and when the order was made it almost created 
a riot. 

In this country we have in our Prayer-Book an 
order for the daily service of this Church, and it is 
provided in our Prayer-Book that the whole of the 
Psalter shall be read through every month, and there 
is a positive provision for reading, on the 31st day of 
those months having thirty-one days, for reading the 
portion assigned to the 30th day. I think I know 
several churches in this country where the Psalter 
is not read through every month. We have a pro- 
vision that in all cases of baptism on Sundays, it 
shaU be after either Morning or Evening Prayer. 
I think there are large numbers of churches 
in which the baptisms do not always take 
place on Sundays after Morning or Evening 
Prayer. We have a provision in the Prayer-Book 
that the minister on Sundays shall give out the 
Holy Days and Fast Days that occur during the suc- 
ceeding week. There are a great many churches, I 
understand, where this is not done, and where from 
ten o'clock on Sunday evening until the next Sun- 
day morning at ten o'clock the church is never open- 
ed at all, instead of having daily prayers and the 
feasts and fasts of the Church kept as directed by 
the Prayer-Book as it now is. That direction is not 
followed at all. 

Now what shall we do ? Shall we hew to the 
line and enforce the present order, or shall we give 
more relaxation ? What shall be done ? We have 
certainly all the law we can enforce at the present 
time if we take up the Prayer-Book and begin with 
the first thing, the Order for Daily Morning and 
Evening Prayer. If we should commence there and 
undertake to enforce that I think we should have busi- 
ness enough on hand ; and if we should go on and 
undertake to see that all the Rubrics were complied 
with in respect to Baptism, we should have busi- 
ness enough on hand ; and if we should undertake 
to enforce the order that all the Holy Days and 
Fast Days should be given out on Sundays and 
kept, and the services conducted as prescribed, I 
think we should have a great deal of work on hand. 

Now, it is proposed to give relaxation in the 
Rubrics in respect to the service for infant baptism. 
That service has stood in our Church, as it has stood 
in the Church of England since 1661, and I do not 
know how long before. It is proposed to relax that, 
but very differently from the relaxation which we 
have already provided as to the omission of the 
sign of the Cross, It is stated in the Rubrics that 
the sign of the Cross is only to be omitted at 
the request of the persons presenting the child for 
baptism, not the minister, but the recipient of the 
Sacrament is to make the request. Here in the 
proposition that we just had before us, it was pro- 
posed, not that the persons presenting the child, but 
that the minister should have the right of making 
the omission. I submit to this House that the par- 
ents and sponsors of the child are the proper par- 
ties to say whether the service shall be performed 
as prescribed in the Prayer-Book, and not the person 
who is to administer the Sacrament. Therefore 
the report, which was before taken up and which is 



to be considered in connection with this, proceeds 
on an entirely wrong basis. It leaves it to the pa- 
rents and sponsors of the child to say whether they 
want the full doctrines of the Church or only a part 
of them. The changed Rubric, as proposed, it is 
said, means the same thing — "No change in doc- 
trine is hereby intended. " Then I should like to 
know what it does mean ? If no change in doctrine 
is intended by the change, what is the use of the 
change ? But you may omit the exhortation 
and the declaration, one preceding and the 
other following the Lord"'s Prayer, and that 
thereby no change of doctrine is intended, and you 
may substitute the Collect for Easter Eve, which 
does not say anything at all about baptismal regen- 
eration — omit two statements in the Prayer-Book 
which assert the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, 
and substitute that which says nothing about it ; 
and then we stultify ourselves by declaring that 
they mean the same thing ! The whole proceeding 
is upon a wrong basis. It should be, if at all, 
at the request of the recipients of the office, the 
sponsors and parents of the child on the one hand, 
and on the other it is wrong for us to say that we 
can make an omission and insert something which 
is not the same, and say they are the same ! That 
is something this Church cannot commit itself to. 
I doubt if there are a dozen clergymen in this House 
who are willing to vote that the Collect for Easter 
Eve means the same thing as the exhortation after 
the lesson in infant baptism, and that is what you 
vote for if you vote for the proposition last under 
consideration. 

Now all I have to say is that I am attached to the 
old Prayer-Book. I like the old ways. I am op- 
posed to novelties. I am satisfied with the Prayer- 
Book as it is. I do not believe we want changes. 
I am for a comprehensive church : I do not wish to 
narrow it. When you make a distinction that cuts 
in here and cuts in there, you drive the Church in 
one narrow channel and impair its usefuhiess. 
If for two hundred and nine years the Church of 
England has done the great work it has done, and 
our Church for eighty years has done the great 
work it has been and is doing with the Prayer- 
Book as it is, should we not let well enough alone ? 
I am afraid of too much tinkering. I think we 
do not want it. Who ciies out for these 
changes ? If a commission get together, one 
will propose this thing, another that thing ; and 
then, as was found in the Committee on Canons on 
the Ritual question, whatever is done is a compro- 
mise. One coTicedes one thing, and another an- 
other ; and the very fundamentals of the faith are 
liable to be traded off in a committee or commis- 
sion. " Stand by the old v/ays." My obser station 
is that men like to hear the old prayers when they 
come into chm'ch. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time is up. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. Mr. President and 
gentlemen of the Convention : There are some 
propositions contained in these resolutions for a 
commission in which I heartily concur ; that is to 
say, I am in favor, as a distinct proposition, of al- 
lowing these shortened services; but I am utterly 
opposed — I concur, and I am glad to concur, with 
my friend from Illinois in utter opposition — to a 
roving commission to go and find wherein any 
tinkering can be done in this old Manual of om* 
faith. I do not see any occasion for it. I have not 
heard anybody who has risen up here during this 
Convention and said he does not accord with the 
Prayer-Book as it stands. That is the sentiment of 
this House, as I believe he has properly uttered it. 

Now, what is this commission to do but to bring 
in a parcel of projects which will consume the 
whole time of the next Convention in idle and un- 
profitable debate ? It was the maxim of Lord Falk- 



293 



land— one of the most leanied of all the laymen 
that ever were ornaments of this Church — that 
where there is no necessity for a change, there is a 
necessity not to change. Nobody urges a necessity 
for a cHauge of anything that we have before us 
now. We are all satisfied ; we take little difference 
of views on some points, but we all reconcile them 
with the text. 

Can any human being frame human language in 
which men will agree ? Every experienced lawyer 
knows that after a thousand years of adjudication 
you hardly reach a settled and firmly fixed adjudi- 
cation of the text of a law; and that the more 
changes there are in the text the more litigation en- 
sues, and that one of the processes which result 
from attempts at simplification of old things is that 
a new brood of suits spring up and 
there is an unsettlement of things by new lan- 
guage. That is the experience of every gentle- 
nian of the bar in this House. Now, when there is 
visibly too apparent among us a disposition, instead 
of going on to prosecute the great end of our or- 
ganization, to fritter away our energies in contes- 
tation, we propose to light up the fires in all direc- 
tions. It does seem to me one of the most ruinous 
propositions that this great Committee, this Com- 
mittee which we all have so much confidence in, 
have developed in this Convention. I hope it will 
be voted down. 

Rev. Dr. SULLIVAN, of Illinois. Mr. President, 
I should like, in connection with this question, to 
read a paragraph from the Preface to the Prayer- 
Book. Objection has been made by the learned 
Judge from Illinois (Mr. Otis) to the principle of 
compromise; and yet I think when we look into 
it for a moment we shall find that the Church herself 
recognizes and admits the advisability of that prin- 
ciple, and the application of it wherever the circum- 
stances of the case seem to demand it. 

"The same Church"— 
The Church of England— 

—"hath not only in her Preface, but likewise in her 
• Articles and Homilies, declared the necessity and 
expediency of occasional alterations and amend- 
ments in her Forms of Public Worship"; and we 
find, accordingly, that, seeking to "keep the happy 
mean between too much stiffness in refusing, and 
too much easiness in admitting, variations in things 
once advisedly established, she hath, 
upon just and weighty considerations her thereun- 
to moving, yielded to make such alterations in 
some particulars as in their respective times were 
thought convenient ; yet so as that the main body and 
essential parts of the same (as well in the chiefest 
materials, as in the frame and order thereof) have 
stiU been continued firm and unshaken. " 

I contend, in contradiction of what has been said 
on this floor, that the Church here recognizes in 
her very opening paragraphs the advisability of a 
principle of compromise, not being too stiff in re- 
fusing, and not, on the other hand, being too easy 
in admitting, variations, and that the application of 
this principle comes in wherever in the collective 
judgment of the Church the actual existing condi- 
tion of the Church seems to demand the application 
of it. ^ ^ 

It is said in connection with this subject that there 
is nothing in the existing condition of the Church to 
demand the application of this principle now. If 
this be so, I should like to enquire from this Conven- 
tion, what means the whole deluge of memorials and 
petitions that have come to the Convention from, we 
are told, more than five hundred of the clergy of this 
Church, a fifth nearly of the whole, and a very 
large number of vestry and other laymen, together 
with the nearly unanimous action of one of the 
largest Dioceses ? This seems to me a strong and 



loud call from a lar^e and respectable portion of 
the Church, demandmg that, even if the changes 
asked for be not made, this Convention should 
be willing to do this much certainly — 
say it will entertain the question ; it will 
entertain it so far as to grant the prayer proposed 
in this report of the Committee on Canons, namely, 
the appointment of a commission for examination 
into the subject. This Convention does nothing; 
it is a perfectly safe pi-oposition to entertain, it 
is left for the judgment of the next Convention 
j to pronoimce whether the proposition shall be 
I acted upon. And, in the meantime, I further con- 
! tend that not only do these five hundred clergy speak 
j out, but I venture to say that these five hundred 
j clergy represent the honest and conscientious feel- 
ing of thousands upon thousands amongst the laity 
of the Church, and I wish to enter a plea before 
this Convention on behalf of those tens of thousands 
in the Church. Their consciences may be said to 
be weak ; and it may seem to some here that 
it is a great crime that any persons 
should be foimd within the bounds of the 
Church who should have weak consciences. It 
may be their misfortune, but it is not their fault ; 
and I think when we go back to the primitive legis- 
lation of the Christian Church, it will be found that 
the very existence of these weak consciences has 
been contemplated from the very foundation of the 
Church. The possibility of their existence is taken 
I for granted, and the necessity of providing a remedy 
' for these weak consciences insisted on. 

The cry has been raised, not here, but elsewhere, 
with regard to persons who are troubled, for exam- 
ple, by the baptismal service ; vague hints ha.ve 
been thrown out in regard to their seeking refuge 
elsewhere — "Let them go; they are not worth re- 
taining," Now, sir, that cry has not been raised, 
thank God, in this Convention. I do not believe 
there is one mouth in the Convention that would give 
utterance to it. It would, of course, be connected 
with such a movement as the Reformed Episcopal 
movement. Now, I wish to say — and I wish to 
say it in self-defence — that, for myself I regard 
that miserable movement with neither fear nor fa- 
vor. It is perfectly true that when I go back to 
Scripture I can find Scripture warrant and autho- 
rity for the movement. I can find it in the Old 
Testament. I find it in the Cave of AduUam, where 
every one that was in debt, and every one that was 
in distress, and every one that was discontented went 
j to their chosen leader, and he became a captain over 
them. Solthinklmay say I find Scripture warrant. 
1 I find still older and more ancient Scripture war- 
rant for that movement when I go back to the his- 
tory of Israel. I find it in the history of Amalek, 
who we are told skulked like a coward in the rear 
of Israel and smote the hindermost of them, even 
all that were feeble behind them. These are the 
only Scriptural warrants that I find for the Re- 
formed Episcopal movement. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. I caUthe 
gentleman to order. He is personal in his remarks. 
[Laughter,] 

Rev. Dr. SULLIVAN, of IlUnois. I say that I 
regard that movement with neither fear nor favor. 
Therefore I do not bring that argument for one mo- 
ment to bear on this Convention, I think it was 
I Lord Macaulay who said that the reason on which 
I the Puritans objected to bear-baiting was not so 
i much that it gave pain to the bear as that it gave 
j pleasure to the spectators. Now, I wish to say that 
j my argument is founded not on consideration for 
the Reformed Episcopal movement at aU, but sim- 
ply on consideration for these weak consciences. 
There are thousands of these in the Church of 
Christ. The Apostle Paul in the first century pro- 
vided for them. He legislated for himself and for 



294 



the Church at large, and said, ''Destroy not him 
■mth thy meat for whom Christ died " ; and I say 
that if this Church of the nineteenth century is 
prepared to walk in the footsteps of Paul, she will do 
some httle thing to apply consolation, to give a 
sensation of rest and relief to these thou- 
sands who are disturbed. It mav be a very 
small thing that is asked, but so much the more 
reason for granting it. Because they ask only a 
small thing, we are told that the granting of this 
small thing would be the entering in of the wedge ; 
that, in other words, in the end it would split and 
break up the Church. Sir, years and vears ago the 
small end of the wedge was inserted." There were 
persons then who objected to the use of the word 
" hell " in the Apostles' Creed. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. 1 rise to a 
pomt of order. My point of order is this— that the 
matter under the consideration of this Convention 
just now — 

The PRESIDENT. Let me speak about the point 
of order before you make it. The gentleman from 
Ilhnois has but a minute and a half, and it will take 
you longer to make your noint of order than it wiU 
for him to finish. [Laughter.] 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Verv weU. 

Rev. Dr. SULLIVAN, of Illinois. Certainlv no 
harm can come from granting what is now asked. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. Mr. 
President and gentlemen of the Convention: In 
the politics of the Kingdom of Heaven there is room 
for statemanship ; and I congratulate this Conven- 
tion that it has before it for the first time a measure 
which bears on its face the hnes of statemanship. 
Although I may not be believed, I speak as a con- 
servative, a ti-ue conservative. Let me remind you 
of an incident with which most of vou are familiar, 
in the recent Parhamentary history of om' mother 
country. In 1868 a Tory Ministry came into power 
pledged to bring in a Reform Bill. " Look. " said their 
opponents, "and see what a feeble child this new min- 
istry will bring forth : we shall soon be back again." 
What did they do ? They brought in a Reform Bill 
so much larger, so much more generous, so much 
more statesmanlike than that which had been intro- 
duced by the Radicals, that it made the reputation 
then and for ever of the statesman who is now Prime 
Minister of England. 

A similar opportunity is given us to-day. I hold 
this measure to be the most'important that has been 
before the American Chm-ch for fifty years. In it 
all the lines of debate upon which we have been en- 
gaged during this session are converged. They have 
all pomted to it. To it they aU lead up. The gentle- 
man on my left [Rev. Dr. Fulton, of Alabama] 
kindly cautioned me against speaking on Report No. 
18 as I stepped on the platform. I had no 
such intention. And allow me to say, simply 
to disabuse the mind of any person who 
may have misunderstood me, that although 
the petition which has been referred to was 
drawn up and presented to me by a very dear 
friend, I constantly and steadfastly refused to sign 
it, on the ground that it was an unwise measure, 
partial, one-sided, narrow, I hope that this commis- 
sion when appointed will be a large commission, re- 
presenting all the great historic schools of the 
Church generously and fairly. I am sorry that 
it is not proposed to make it larger ; but I am glad 
to observe that the language is "a commission," 
and not " a committee," so that we may be at liber- 
ty in voting to draw from aU the wealth of learning 
in the Church, whether represented in this Conven- 
tion or not. 

AUow me to say that, just because I do believe we 
are in a crisis, I am opposed to anything like panic 
legislation, and I have felt dissati^ed with much of 
the legislation of this session, because it has seemed 



to be just that panic legislation, and I hold 
that the boasted unanimity with which we 
passed our much-vaunted Canon the other day 
was in some sense— you wiU pardon me for saying it 
— a proof of its superficiality. I hold that the argu- 
ment of the Ritualists, here and elsewhere, that 
canonical legislation upon this subject is unconstitu- 
tional, is an unanswerable argument. It has not 
been met or begun to be met by any speaker on this 
floor. 

Now, sir, because we are in a crisis, I say it is time 
that we should be cool-headed and clear-headed. 
What is the crisis ? The gentleman who preceded 
me spoke as -if he imagined it to be a crisis brought 
on by a recent movement in this Church known as 
the Reformed Episcopal movement. 

Rev. Dr. SULLIVAN, of Ilhnois. I repudiate 
that. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. The 
gentleman repudiates that. I am glad he does. To 
my mind, the crisis comes of a far prof ounder move- 
ment than that. It comes of a movement bom by 
Divine Providence forty years ago in the marvellous 
brain of that illustrious man, John Henry Newman. 
It is in the culmination of the movement begun by 
him that we stand to legislate to-day; and no man 
who feels the indebtedness that most theological 
students must feel to the great mind 
of that movement will wish, in a,ny such 
measure as this, its results should be kept out of 
view. We are sitting, and have been sitting, in this 
Convention, in judgment upon that great move- 
i ment ; for, as I said before, and as I honestly be- 
lieve, in the Providence of God it is a movement 
which, while some of its friends have acknowledged 
sadly to have been a partial failure, is a movement 
full of rich results, which we are now prepared to 
garner. 

I agree with the distinguished Lay Deputy from 
Maryland (Mr, Blair) in deprecating the making of 
our Triennial Conventions the scenes of perpetual 
controverey ; and it is because I believe that until 
this measure is carried perpetual controversy must 
continue, that I am in favor of its passage. A 
former Presbyter of this Church and a distinguished 
ornament of its ministry, now a member of the 
Roman Catholic order of Paulists, said in his book 
with infinite humor that he had at last reached a 
church where there was no longer any apprehen- 
sion of the doings of the next General Convention. 
Sir, there will be ground for that apprehension 
until we meet the issue which is before us fairly and 
squarely. 

There is in these matters a periodic law largely in- 
dependent of individual thought and feeling ; 
and if you will look over the histoiy of the Church 
you will find that from time to time, by the work- 
ings of this periodic law, there comes a call for the 
readjustment of the formularies of worship, prayer 
and praise — not formularies of faith, remember, but 
the formularies of worship, the rules of discipline 
— to the present existing state of things. And 
what man looks back upon the past history of this 
country during one hundred years but will admit 
that there never was a century more calculated to 
create such an exigency as we now see, than this 
century that has passed in this land ? 

Now I come to the objections. They are two. 
The first is, and it will be repeatedly urged on 
this floor, that it is unwise to take so important a 
step as this under excitement. I agree ; but I ask you 
to consider seriously and candidly whether such 
a measure is ever likely to reach a point where any- 
body will act on it, unless there is a certaiu amount 
of excitement. Excitement is not always unhealthy ; 
a certain amount of it may be healthy; and believe 
me that, in a time of deadness and indifference, a 



295 



wise measure like this never could have been 
launched. 

Now, the second objection— and I speak of this 
with diflQdence, remembering where I am. It has 
been urged with a questionable rhetorical taste by a 
voice from without — and, did I not remember where I 
am, I should use stronger language than to say " ques- 
tionable rhetorical taste " — that this body, from its 
very nature, is as incompetent to deal with matters 
of Liturgical Revision as the Common Council of this 
city is to deal with the music of Beethoven. Sir, 
I venture to traverse that proposition utterly ; and 
I venture to say that if the history of the 
last forty years in this Church means any- 
thing, it means this : That the mind of the Angli- 
can Communion in England and in this coun- 
try has been gradually undergoing a process of 
education looking toward this very end. There 
never was a time since the Reformation — and I make 
this assertion asking for correction from any one 
competent to correct me — when there was so much 
liturgical knowledge in this Church as now. Con- 
temporaneously with the movement to which I have 
referi'ed, the Tractarian movement, so called, was 
begun in England, a parallel movement of a different 
character, namely, a movement for the revival of 
Biblical scholarship ; and what has been the result ? 
The result has been a similar event in the Biblical 
line to what we now have presented to us in the 
liturgical line, namely, a movement for a revision 
of the Holy Scriptures. [Here the hammer fell.] 
Several DEPUTIES. Go on ; go on. 
Rev. Dr. HUNTIISC4T0N, of Massachusetts. I 
ask no favor. I have indicated my line of thought. 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. Mr. President, I 
had not intended to participate in this discussion, 
and you will excuse me if I say that I do not now 
intend to participate in it. A remark made, how- 
ever, by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Blair) 
rendered it desu'able, as I think, for me to state a 
fact to this Convention, which is the purpose of my 
taking the stand. 

When speaking upon this subject, he alluded to 
the universal, or well-nigh universal, feeling of the 
necessity of providing in some form for a shorter 
form of services. I desire to say, in reference to 
that matter, that the Committee on Amendments to 
the Constitution, of which I have the honor to be a 
member, have had that matter before them, and, if 
I am not mistaken, there is a report upon our Calen- 
dar to be acted upon touching that question of a short- 
er service. The gentleman from Maryland seemed 
to imply in wJiat he said that providing for that 
necessity was a matter which was, to some extent, 
involved in this question of a revision. I desire to 
say no ; the Constitution itself provides that the 
Prayer-Book may be touched by a certain class of 
action, and amendments to the Constitution may 
be made by a certain character of action, both 
much alike, but nevertheless they are independent 
subjects. The Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution are of the opinion that this matter of 
a shortened service may be provided for better than 
by touching the Prayer-Book, and they have so re- 
ported. It is that it may be provided for by a very 
simple amendment to the Constitution, and they 
have made a report to that effect. If gentlemen 
who have the Constitution before them will turn to 
Article 8, they will find that it reads thus : 

" A Book of Common Prayer, Administration of 
the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of 
the Church, Aiiiicles of Religion, and a Form and 
Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating 
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, when established by 
this or a future General Convention, shaU be used 
in the Protestant Episcopal Church in those Dio- 
ceses which shall have adopted this Constitution. 
No alteration or addition shall be made in the Book 



I of Common Prayer, or other Ofiices of the Church, 

I or the Articles of Religion, unless the same shall be 
1 proposed in one General Convention, and by a re- 
I solve thereof made known to the Convention of 
i every Diocese, and adopted at the subsequent Gen- 
eral Convention." 
The Committee on Amendments to the Constitu- 
! tion have prepared a proposed amendment to fol- 
low immediately after this Article of the Constitu- 
tion as it now stands. In substance it is — I do not 
know that I can give the exact words : "Provided, 
That the General Convention may provide for a 
shorter form of service, compiled exclusively from 
the dail5^ Morning and Evening Prayer." That 
reaches it by a simple amendment to the Constitution, 
without touching the Prayer-Book, and the necessity 
which the Deputy from Maryland alluded to is pro- 
vided for without at all involving this question of a 
commission upon the Prayer-Book. 

And now, having said this, which was really what 
I obtained the floor to say, allow me to add, as I am 
on the floor, that I believe I know something, not 
fully perhaps, not so fully as I should, but yet I be- 
lieve I have a very general idea, and I thinik a cor- 
rect idea, of the feeling, wish, and heart of 
' the laity of the Church throughout the 
country ; and I believe that feeling and 
that wish is to "let the Prayer-Book alone." 
Whatever theologians may say, or however 
they may differ, I humbly submit that the voice of 
I the laity of this Church is, to use a slang phrase, but 
; a significant one, " hands off " ; that Prayer-Book is 
too sacred to be touched in a period of excitement. 
I, for one, do not recognize the idea or its wisdom 
I that because I have a particle of dust in my eye, 
j therefore I shall put an oculist at work with his 
I knife. 

i Rev. Mr. GARRISON, of New Jersey. I regard 
\ this, Mr. President, as evidently one of the most 
i statesmanlike movements in our Church. I ap- 
! proach it from no partisan view. I have no desire 
I for High Chm-ch legislation or for Low Church 
i legislation; but I conceive that the Church 
I in om* country, the Church in our age, 
i has problems submitted to it which have never 
I before been in the power of the Church 
! since the conversion of Constantine. For the 
I first time, we stand in the history of the Church able 
to compass the great problem of self -development. — 
of self-development under conditions which allow 
— nay, when the highest obligations to God and man 
constrain us to meet the wants of a world. We 
have given to us not merely the Anglo-Saxon race, 
with their love of order, of propriety, of stability, 
but we have given to us the problem of the Indian 
race, with their peculiar characteristics, to train and 
cultivate ; we have the problem of the negro 
race, with their enthusiasm, their need 
to be governed through certain of the 
more aesthetic parts of pubSc worship. We have 
the Chinese race coming, and we have to meet them. 
We have, beside all this, the fact that we are in an 
age of the world when every element of thought is 
in ferment, when men need the stability of settled 
teaching and yet the flexibility of ready adaptation, 
in the means. We need the power to adopt all that 
is elegant, all that is beautiful, in the worship of the 
Church in its age of grandeur, in the time when 
glory and beauty were used to adorn the house of Al- 
mighty God. We need, as has been weU said, to 
go to the very threshold of medieeval error, 
provided we mark upon the door, "That is 
mediaeval error." We need to go to the 
very barrier of the nineteenth-century secta- 
rianism if we draw the line and mark deep the abyss : 
" That is sectarianism. " And to do that we need to 
have our Church ritual revised, not the words, not 
the service, not the doctrines— they have come down 



296 



to us as the unchangeable deposit of the faith— but 
we need to have the power of adaptation ; we need 
to say that things which are now uncertain in the 
minds of conscientious men may or may not be done. 

I recorded myself, for example, upon the subject 
of Ritual as in favor of propei* restrictions ; and yet 
ncf man stands upon this floor who would be more 
willing to mark the utmost safe limit to Ritual as 
the science of devotion, the science of reverence, the 
science of symbolizing everything that is grand and 
true and beautiful and powerful in the 
Church of Grod. I only want to draw 
the line where it passes from Catholic 
truth to Romish heresy. To do that, and 
let wise minds and free minds do it 
with conscientious certainty, requires that we 
settle vexed points of law. No man can say 
to-day certainly what is the law of the American 
Church in regard to the Ritual and the ornament 
of the Church. I read this morning of Sir Archibald 
Stephens, high authority, that the law on every such 
subject is unsettled and uncertain even in England, 
where they have had ages of experience in interpret- 
ing the law. If the law is so unsettled, how are we to 
settle it ? I find my brethren who go to- 
ward the extreme of high observance are conscien- 
tious, many of them, indeed, think they can do 
under the law that which I, with equal conscientious- 
ness; think the law does not allow them to do. We 
want not a tinkering commission, but to let us know 
somewhere where the line can he drawn, that we 
mav know what the law is upon the right hand and 
upon the left. I desire a broad law, but I desire a 
law. 

I can say, with scarcely the possibility of a doubt, 
that every clergyman has violated the Canons and 
Rubrics in holding services without employing the 
whole of the Morning Prayer. To stand up in a 
congregation of utterly ignoran|, untaught, illiter- 
ate men, as I have done, and as you have all 
done, time and again, and begin to read a 
responsive service, to make them say after you 
paragraph after paragraph, or have no echo, is sim- 
ply an absurdity in many cases ; and in the name of 
common sense I have violated, and I presume we 
have all violated, the direct literal observance of the 
Rubrics, because we cannot observe them. Make 
the variations to come within reasonable limits, and 
then we shall have a law under which we can live, 
and not encourage a disrespect for law. 

I think that this Church has one grave duty 
which has not been touched in any debate here, and 
that is the duty of instructing and continuing to in- 
struct this American people in the idea of obedience 
to law. We have had it as our high boasts that we 
as a Church did hold that ; but under the pressure 
of strong feeling and intense impulse we have 
allowed variations here, variations there, and we 
are in great danger of losing our very reputation 
as a law-observing community, when we teach this 
great nation that license may be allowable in a 
Church boasting itself pre-eminently as the Church 
of law. Let us go, therefore, to this matter of Ru- 
brical observance, that we are not to make laws for 
the Reformed Church or those who desire to go off 
in that direction, nor for the so-called Ritualists 
and those who go off there ; but with a broad, true, 
catholic desire to give the widest liberty, but lib- 
erty within law. Then, sir, having done that, we 
shall know where the Church stands, and what the 
Church is. 

Nor can it be a matter of haste. It must take at 
least three years of cahn enquiry. It may take 
three years more. We can postpone it from term 
to term until we feel able to crystallize these things; 
for do not let us say at the very barrier that we 
will do nothing in this great age, when men are en- 
quiring how we are to bring back all that is possible 



of the great old Catholic world of the early ages. 

The more I look into it, the more I reverence it. The 
more I think over those great masters, the 
more I feel that there were giants in those 
days. The more I worship with these old Liturgies 
in my hand, the more do I feel raised to God. The 
most precious book on my table, outside the Holy 
Bible, is a book of ancient Liturgies. The Church 
owes Mason Neale a debt it never can repay, in 
bringing to the heart and home and table of every 
clergyman in this land those grand and glo- 
rious exhalations from the souls of men 
j who lived near God ; and as we have the 
I problem of bringing back their spirit to the Church 
j and to this age, let us not say because we inherited 
a glorious Liturgy from insular England at the 
I verge of a great contest, when minds were neces- 
j sarily narrowed, though broad, marvellously, almost 
miraculously broad under their circumstances, they 
yet were in a condition of things not able to see the 
futurity that has opened out on this New World. 
Let us not say that we will stand there, and in a 
spirit of superetitious regard for the iota of the text, 
say we will not let the Church broaden and deepen 
and expand itself until it shall cover the whole 
land, as the ocean covered the mighty deep. I hope 
that the Church will feel the need of letting us imbibe 
the old spirit, of letting us understand, of 
letting us see what may be needed, and take three 
years— take six years— take half a century, if it 
need be, to do it ; let us not say that we propose to 
stand where we did three hundred ye^rs ago, when 
the world has moved as certainly as it did in the 
time of Galileo. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. Mr. Presi- 
dent and gentlemen — I only rise to warn you of 
what you are about to do. If you determine that 
you have come to such a crisis that a most extra- 
ordinary measure must be adopted, so be it ; but it 
is against the spirit of your Constitution, 
against the spirit of the compact which was 
made by all of us in affirming the Constitution and 
adopting the Prayer-Book, and it is attended with 
dangers which any man can see, and some of which 
have been pointed out. 

The Prayer-Book can be amended. I am not a 
worshipper of the Prayer-Book any more than I 
am a worshipper of the outside of the Bible ; but I 
say this : That when that body which adopted our 
Constitution detemiined distinctly that there was a 
way to amend the Prayer-Book, they marked out 
that as the proper way and no other; and if you 
adopt any other way, it will be something like a 
revolution. You call a commission which is virtually 
the same almost as calling a civil convention. You 
get there the elements of those who desire change, 
and perhaps the elements of those who do not desire 
change, and what is the result ? Do you know how 
many do desire change ? I desire change. I desire 
change in the rubrics, and a change in the rubrics 
is all that I want ; and we change the text by chang- 
ing the rubrics. Is there a man here who cannot 
perceive that if you give unlimited control over the 
Rubrics, if you give men the right to take the 
Rubrics and alter them, and adapt them to their 
own notions, you in fact subject the text to change. 
Take the Office for the Consecration of Bishops. You 
have these two forms. One Rubric says, "Omit 
that. " Now, when you come to this about regenera- 
tion, if you omit the Rubric you are altering the 
text. I would ask you to omit something too. 
I would ask you to omit the "proceeding from 
the Father and the Son," and I would only 
ask it by Rubric. I would put it in parentheses, and 
I would say that he who performed the service 
might omit it. Then perhaps there is another 
word there T would like to omit, and that is, 
"Trinity," and I would substitute "Jehovah." 



297 



that name by which He called himself when 
He gave the Ten Commandments. Are you 
willing that these changes should be made ? Give 
me the power to cast the Rubrics and I would 
do that. Now, you can see at once that when you 
commit the whole of the Rubrics to a commission 
you commit the whole of the Prayer-Book to a com- 
mission, and I say it is a most dangerous experi- 
ment. 

But the Prayer-Book points out directly how you 
shall ameud it. How shall it be ? Specifically name 
your difficulty, set forth your difficulty, make your 
change, submit it to the whole Church, and then, if 
you adopt it, then it is all right ; but if you go 
to a commission, you cannot resist it. I want to 
get the changes I have indicated. I would con- 
, sent to some other change if I could get it, so that 
no mischieL would be done. I would not go for that 
which people may call vulgarly "log-rolling"; but 
a conscientious man may do it, and he may believe 
that he will be serving God by doing it. 

Now, gentlemen, I only wish to put the matter 
before you that you may imderstand what you 
are going to do. If you wish to have something 
like a revolution, then appoint your commission, 
because that will be the beginning of that 
revolution. If you choose to amend the 
Prayer-Book as those who composed it and fixed 
it have determined, take every objection to 
it seriatim, and consider it by itself. Do 
not let other considerations enter into it, but just 
consider that one thing and no more ; and if you 
agree that that alteration shall be made, let it be 
made. As I have said, I am willing to change the 
Prayer-Book. I think that those who say nothing 
is to be changed in it, make a great mistake. Those 
who made it intended it to be changed, 
because they pointed out how it should 
be changed. All I ask you to do is to stand under 
that, and change it just as it was intended to be 
changed, and all will be content ; but do not attempt 
that which I tell you cannot be anythuig else but 
the beginning of a revolution, and it is a very haz- 
ardous thing to adventure on such a step. 

The proposition originally came in the shape of a 
congress, in which the House of Bishops was to be a 
part and as many of this House as we chose to put, 
so that we might have a hundred or two hundred. 
Now, I resist all attempts against the Prayer-Book 
by commission. I am willing that there shall be at- 
tached to it any member that you please. That will 
be growth, but if you start to remodel and reform 
the whole, it is not growth but revolution, radical 
change ; you go to the root of the matter. 

All that I wanted to do was to point out that. I 
say take care how you amend the Prayer-Book by 
amending the Constitution. The two things are 
very different. Why was it said that you shall 
amend the Constitution in one way, and then that a 
separate article was put in to show how you are to 
amend the Prayer-Book? There was wisdom in 
this. If you want to amend the Constitution 
so as to get to the Prayer-Book, you partly 
blind the eyes of those to whom you are addressing 
yourseK. Take the instance which my friend from 
the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution 
set before you, to amend it so as to allow this Gen- 
eral Convention to order new services. I say if you 
do that you break down the ramparts which protect 
the Prayer-Book, and soon you may do what you 
please with it. The design to amend was 
this : if you want to amend the Prayer- 
Book go directly to the change in the 
Prayer-Book, and do not change your Con- 
stitution, and give somebody else the power 
to change the Prayer-Book. Go directly to the 
thing in the Prayer-Book which you want to change, 
and let aU your Dioceses know what you are going 



to do. Do not conceal it. I do not mean that my 
friends intend to conceal at all, but do not allow it 
to be concealed or veiled in any way by a proposi- 
tion to amend the Constitution. 

I think you can do nothing more hazardous than 
to amend the Prayer-Book through the Constitution 
with a view of getting a commission, which is to 
accommodate everybody with new Rubrics. I have 
said all I have to say, and I trust that gentlemen 
will not think it a mere habit of resistance to change 
on my part, for I have none of that. I desire changes, 
and one of these, if I could have got the ear 
of this body, I would have proposed here, and put 
it to you whether you would adopt it. And let 
every man who wants to change the Prayer-Book 
put his change to the House. The proposition for a 
change in the Baptismal Service goes directly to 
the point : and I would say what has been said by 
the gentleman from Illinois is true, you 
have only considered one side, just as 
also this proposition about dividing the services. 
You have only considered one side. One is to do it. 
The one gives it to the minister only. It does not 
consult the other people at all. Now, I consider that 
the congregation, the sponsors, the parents, all 
have rights to that service just as much as the 
Presbyter who is to pronounce the words, and 
therefore I would make such a provision: 
and those gentlemen who want it carried 
out had better make that provision so that it will 
guard every man's right; and when they have 
guarded every man's right and all agree, well, I do 
not know that they save the doctrine, for when 
they say it does not change the doctrine it is a tacit 
admission that there is a doctrine there, and if you 
take that assent and do it, after that they never can 
deny it is there. Therefore I do not so much 
object to it, but I think it is quite possi- 
sible it will have the same result as when they 
bracketed "hell." [Laughter.] When I was a boy 
I never heard it, and now I go nowhere that I do 
not hear " He descended into heU "; and that very 
same thing I believe will be the end of this thing. 
If you remove it from contestation, as was said, I 
beUeve you will very soon find that everybody will 
say "regenerate." 

Rev. Mr. WARD, of Maine. Mr. President and 
gentlemen of the Convention, I am not a 
lawyer, but I have sat in my seat in this House, and 
listened to the wisdom of lawyers with profound 
consideration. But, sir, I would rather Hsten 
on this subject to the wisdom of the Gospel than 
to the wisdom of those lawyers in this 
House, and I have learned that the Church of 
Christ is the extension of the incarnation in this 
world for the salvation of immortal souls, and I am 
a clergyman in this Church in order to do this 
work in my humble way of extending the Church 
of Christ in this country. 

Now, sir, what do we propose to do by this com- 
mission for Rubrical revision ? We propose to 
adapt the Prayer-Book of our Church to the needs 
of the Church in this country, in order to gather 
in the multitudes of this country who are creed- 
less and almost Christless, and we feel that 
we have a mission among them. What did 
we do the other day in enacting the 
Canon on Ritual but provide for the 
adaptation of this Chm'ch to the needs of the coun- 
try ? Now I hold that we need to furnish this Com- 
mission on Rubrical revision, in order to adapt our 
Prayer-Book, in its Rubrics, in its adaptation of ser- 
vices, to the needs of every parochial and every mis- 
sionary clergyman in this Church. I doubt whether 
there are many parochial clergymen in our Com- 
mmiion who are not compelled to break the Ru- 
brics, and I nave yet to learn that any of our 
missionary clergymen can live one week in their 



298 



several cures or positions without breaking Ru- 
brics. I want to be a law-abiding clergyman, and 
in order to be a law-abiding clergyman we must 
have our Prayer-Book so adapted that we can con- 
scientiously discharge our duty as parish priests and j 
as missionary clergymen in the doing of our appro- 
priate work. 

For this reason I feel that this is of the very high- 
est importance. In fact I do not know that any sub- 
ject of greater importance has come before this 
House than forming a committee on this subject of 
Rubrical revision. Take the daily services. It is 
said that the daily services are not attended 
because they are too long. They need to be 
adapted to our rapid, active American 
life. Take the missionary services in 
new places, and we have to adapt them to the needs 
of our work. Take the weekly services, and take 
all the daily round of activity which every parish 
clergyman is familiar with, and if we can have 
something done to meet the wants of our 
communion in regard to shorter services, in regard 
to greater variety of regular forms of public 
service, and in regard to a new Lectionary, 
it seems to me it would be a great relief to many 
earnest men who are trying to do the Church's 
work in their several places and appointments. I 
am aware there are difficulties connected with this 
commission, but there are difficulties connected 
with everything under the sun, and there will be to 
the end of time. 

Let me speak upon one other point and I have 
done. What is the English Church doing? We are 
pointed to her as the mother of all wisdom 
for the Anglican Communion, and she is 
about appointing through her House of Con- 
vocation a committee on this very sub- 
ject of adapting the English Church to meet 
the wants of the English nation. Let us in our wis- 
dom follow the example of our mother Church, and 
do something in our way to adapt our Prayer- 
Book, good and noble as it is, the inherited wis- 
dom of all Christian ages, to the needs and wants 
of the American people ; and do it, not in a panic, 
but in sober wisdom and real earnest. 

Rev. Dr. W^ATSON, of North Carolina, obtained 
the floor. 

Rev. Dr. NORTON, of Virginia. Will Dr. Wat- 
son allow me a moment to oft'er a resolution ? 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. Cer- 
tainly. 

Rev. Dr. NORTON,* of Virginia. I am sure many 
of us are anxious to reach a vote on this important 
subject ; and, reluctant as I am to interfere with a 
discussion so interesting and instructive, I would 
like to move, a,nd if the gentleman from North 
Carolina will permit me, I will now move, that in 
ten minutes, allowing him to make his speech if he 
wishes, we vote upon the question now before the 
House. 

Rev. Dr. PULTON, of Alabama. I object, Mr. 
President ; I think that would hardly be fair. I 
believe that this measure will pass through the 
Convention, and I trust that it may. It may be 
that, on behalf of the Committee, there may be 
something yet to be said ; and, at all events, if this 
measure goes through the Convention, its power, to 
force, its value will depend upon moral unanimity, 
which can only be attained by the freest discussion 
of all men. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to take the vote in ten minutes. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. Will the gen- 
tleman from North Carolina allow me to send to the 
Chair an amendment which I wish to offer to the 
second resolution when it comes up, simply to give 



it more efficiency, for I am in favor of the resolu- 
tion ? 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. Certainly. 

The SECRETARY. In the second line of resolu- 
tion second the proposed amendment is to strike 
out the word " Commission," and insert the word 
" Committee," and in the fifth line after the word 
"Deputies," to insert "Whose duties it shall be, at 
as early a day as practicable, to appoint a commis 
sion, to be constituted as they may think best," so 
that it will read : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That a Joint Committee, consisting of seven Bish- 
ops, seven Presbyters, and seven laymen, be ap- 
pointed, the Presbyters and laymen to be chosen 
by ballot in the House of Deputies, whose duty it 
shall be, at as early a day as practicable, to appoint 
a Commission, to be constituted as they,jpiay think 
best, to take into consideration the whole subject of 
Rubrical revision," etc. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. Mr. 
President and gentlemen of the Convention, I was 
out at the opening of the debate this morning, and 
am not sure that 1 have heard everything which has 
been said. It is possible, therefore, I may repeat some 
things that have been better said than I can say 
them. Still, as a member of the Committee on 
Canons, and particularly as connected with the Sub- 
committee to which this measure was referred, it 
seems to me but appropriate that I should give the 
reasons for casting my ov/n vote in its favor. I de- 
sire at all events that it should be to the edification 
of the House, and if I fail it will not be for want of 
a good intent. 

in ^jhe first place, let it be said or repeated, and 
understood cai'efully, as has been said already, that 
there is no change of faith proposed but only a 
change of services. We do not propose therefore to 
disturb in anywise the foundation of the faith, and 
we only propose a variety of services, such as shall 
be entirely consistent with those foundations and 
built up squarely upon them and nothing more, for 
no man would be more unwilling to depart from the 
sacred principles which underlie the Constitution of 
the Church and our Prayer-Book than I. But I appre- 
hend it is no such fundamental or revolutionarymeas- 
ure ; nor, in the next place, do we intend to take a 
revolutionary mode of effecting the change. To all 
statesmen and politicians certainly this thing is well 
knov/n. It is not strange that Constitutions of States 
may be changed. That is not a revolution. Com- 
mittees or Commissions, just as you please to call 
them, may be appointed to change the Constitution, 
and there is no revolution in that, pro- 
vided it be done in a lawful and de- 
liberate way ; and that is all which this 
Committee proposes to do. It proposes to put it in 
the power of a Commission not to make changes, as 
seems to have been thought by some who have op- 
posed the matter on this floor, but to suggest them, 
and it is utterly impossible, as the case now stands, 
that anything can be confirmed in this direction 
within the space of six years. All that that Com- 
mission can do will be to suggest changes to 
the next General Convention, and the next Gen- 
eral Convention entirely out of its own power or in its 
own power, and what the commission will have done 
will be simply preparatory, suggestive and informal. 
It will not bind the Convention in one particle. 
The Convention will be perfectly free to act, and of 
its own motion to suggest to the succeeding General 
Convention that which it proposes to do. There is 
no resolution, therefore, in the matter. All must 
concur in this order, the Bishops, clergy and laity, 
or the order cannot pass, and they must concur not 
only once, but twice. 

Sir, I have long had a desire to see some such 
changes as these, and the desire has entered my 



299 



mind from practical directions. I have felt the dif- 
ficulties of our position with respect to the Rubrics 
in carrying out the services of the Church as a 
minister. I have, however, feared that it was im- 
practicable. In the fii'st place, I have been exceed- 
ingly reluctant to disturb the Prayer-Book 
at all. I have felt that it was dangerous 
to open the door, lest things should come 
in which would prove disastrous to us. 
If blessings come in, it may be that 
some things which are curses may enter with 
them. I acknowledge that danger. It must be for 
the wisdom of this Convention to guard against it. 
But at the same time, with all my fears, upon con- 
versing with many Churchmen " lately, my hopes 
also have been raised. I have come to hope that at 
last something of this kind may be done ; and 
now let me give briefly some reasons why I 
think it should be done. I will endeavor to 
be brief. I say there are certain great 
advantages in prospect in this change. It must be 
confessed that the difficulties we feel are real. We 
do not pretend that the Church is absolutely per- 
fect, that the Common Prayer Book is perfect, or 
that the Rubrics are perfect. We cannot say that. 
We beheve that they are near perfection, but they 
are not absolutely so. Why should we not have 
them stiU nearer if the wisdom of the Church can 
detect any road to that result ? 

Now, I say that the Rubrics, toward the arrange- 
ment of which the adoption of this measure is di- 
rected, are some of them doubtful, some of them 
difficult of execution, and some of them defective. 
There are doubtful Rubrics, as for instance the 

Eosition of priests receiving the Communion. I 
ave no doubt about that myself, but there are 
those who doubt whether that Rubric prescribes 
that he shall kneel himself or receive it 
standing. I will not take up time by read- 
ing the Rubric; you will find it in the 
Prayer-Book. Then there is doubt as to 
whether individual congregations or whole dioceses 
can consent to the omission of the phrase, "He de- 
scended into hell," to which reference has been made. 
Again, it is doubtful whether certain Anthems are 
allowable in parts of the service which have not been 
provided by Rubrics. I mention these rapidly ; I 
cannot dwell upon them, for my time is short. 

Again, there are difficult Rubrics; for instance, 
that Rubric which requires a certain number to be 
present at the communion of the sick. The minis- 
ters of the Church know full w^ell how sometimes 
they may be disappointed at the last moment, hav- 
ing made every arrangement that is required; the 
persons may be absent; and shall the dying man go 
without the Last Supper which he desires ? 
If for no other reason, because he desires it, 
because it is necessary in order to quiet his 
own mind and comfort him at that last 
extreme moment— I say shall he go without it be- 
cause the Rubric says two persons shall be present, 
and the minister having provided for them to be 

E resent, they have absented themselves? Again, I 
ave had an instance in my own knowledge, in my 
own congregation, where persons receiving the 
communion on their dying beds have died before it 
was administered. The services preceding the act 
are too long. Again, there is a Rubric, as you 
all know, which provides that at the end 
of the Communion Service, the elements 
remaining shall be consumed by the min- 
ister and other communicants, and not 
be carried out of the Church. I have known so 
much wine left us as to endanger those who have 
received, and put them in danger of baking too 
much, by endeavoring to follow the Rubric as it 
stands. Of course, they cannot generally consume 
so much as to overthrow their reason; but we must 



make some disposition consistent with the great law 
of temperance. Then, again, there are difficulties 
which arise at funerals — the burying of persons who 
have not received the baptism of the Church. But 
I will not dwell on that; that is a minor matter. 

But there are defective Rubrics also. I think 
our Rubrics should provide more largely a Lection- 
ary to suit all seasons of the Church, more accu- 
rately for postures in the Baptismal Office, and we 
should not be obhged to have recourse to our 
Bishops for direction in this matter. And so in the 
Confii^mation service ; and in prescribing rules for 
clergymen, you know what a wide field is opened 
for dispute, and sometimes for angry dispute, and 
our Rubrics prescribe absolutely nothing. So, too, 
with the ornaments of the Church ; and so in pro- 
viding for shortened services, we desire Rubrics 
which shall be more complete, 

I maintain that the letter of those Rubrics is im- 
perative. If circumstances make it possible— I do 
not say easy — I feel bound to comply with the let- 
ter of the Rubrics. All do not agree with me in 
that matter. There are many excuses offered, and 
I ha^e heard it said on this floor that 
there is no clergyman in this Church who 
does not break these Rubrics. I strive not 
to break one. There are those who say 
the Rubric of common-sense will come in and set- 
tle these matters. I protest against that ; and to 
get that out of the way is one of my motions for 
advocating this measure. I say it is a dangerous 
Rubric. It puts into the mind or judgment or 
fancy of every individual man, Presbyter or 
Deacon, what he shall do in common-sense 
to justify him in departing from the 
letter of the Church's law which has been put upon 
him. He has sworn to obey that law, and I say he 
is bound to obey it in the face of everything which 
is not absolutely impossible. Impossibility, of course, 
knows no law. I Imow these are loyal men who do 
these things ; men who mean to obey the Church ; 
but I sa;^ their consciences are strained, and we can 
reheve that strain, and we ought to do it. We should 
not keep such a strain upon the minds of our 
brethren. 

There are also advantages of manner, I maintain, 
in the action proposed. We propose to make a con- 
stitutional measure. There are constitutional diffi- 
culties. The Constitution provides how the Prayer- 
Book shall be changed. We propose to take this out 
of all minor spheres and put it where the Constitu- 
tion leaves it. The Constitution, by providing for 
this contingency, did anticipate such a 
movement as we propose now. It is not 
unconstitutional ; it is not contrary to the spirit of 
the Church. The contingency was provided for by 
the Church itself. I am as much as anybody op- 
posed to anything like haste or inconsideration in 
this matter lest wrong things be done, wrong Ru- 
brics be made, lest we do things inconsistent. And 
here is an answer to some of the positions taken by the 
Deputy from South Carolina, I object to specific or 
special legislation in this matter just because it may 
make your legislation inconsistent. Let it be a gen- 
eral measure, and your Rubrics will all hang to- 
gether and be one harmonious whole, such as the 
Church of God should present. The proposition, let 
us remember, is not to do this thing hastily, but to 
do it at the end of six years at the nearest, at the 
end perhaps of nine years. I hope the measure will 
pass. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. Mr. President— 
The PRESIDENT. The hour for recess is near at 
hand. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia, There is a 
message from the House of Bishops necessary to be 
concurred in, which I ask to bring before the 
House. 



300 



Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I give way for that 
purpose. 

The PRESIDENT. It is necessary to concur in 
that, and then I have a letter to read to the House 
which I think they will all stay to hear. 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN CHURCHES. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Yesterday, 
Message No. 54 was received from the House of Bi- 
shops, informing this House of the appointment of 
membei^ of the Standing Committee on Foreign 
Churches. I move that this House confirm their 
action. 

The motion was agreed to. 

CLOSING SERVICES— HOLY TRINITY CHURCH. 

The PRESIDENT. I desire to read the follow- 
ing letter to the House, not for immediate action, 
but that it may be the subject of consideration for 
action which is not far off. 

Church of the Holy Trinity, 
Madison Avenue and Forty-second St. 
Rev. and Dear Sir : I am instructed by the cor- 
poration of the Church of the Holy Trinity to offer 
to the General Convention the use of their new 
church for the closing services of the present ses- 
sion. 

To this official annoujicement permit me to add 
my personal hope that the Convention may find it 
convenient to accept the invitation. A large num- 
ber of the clergy and laity of the city are desirous 
to unite in the solemnities which will con- 
clude the work of the Convention for 
whose comfort we are satisfied that 
we can offer superior facilities. The chancel of the 
Church will acconamodate the whole House of 
Bishops, and ample provision can be made for the 
House of Deputies without excluding a single wor- 
shipper from without. 

With considerations of personal regard, 
I am faithfully yom-s, 

STEPHEN H. TYNG, Jr. 

Rev. James Craik, d.d„ 

Prest, House of Deputies. 

I wish to say, gentlemen, that many of us must 
recoUect with pain the close of the last General 
Convention in Baltimore nearly at midnight. It 
was the loss of an opportunity, valuable and im- 
portant, to present this Church in its best a,spect to 
th3 people of that city and to the strangers who were 
assembled there. I hoped then, I hope now, that we 
shall not have a repetition of that scene, but that 
the closing services of the Convention, as the open- 
ing services, will be of a proper and reverential 
character, and I am specially pleased with the in- 
vitation which I have just read. 

There is another matter connected with the 
Church of the Hol3^ Trinity, which it is my duty 
to bring before the House. When objection was 
made on the first day of our session to this building 
as one incapable of accommodating the House in its 
business, and we adjourned v/ith the ex- 
pectation that possibly we should be com- 
pelled to remove, the authorities of that 
church heard of the difficulty and had 
a meeting, and offered to this Convention, 
through the President, the use of that most beauti- 
ful church — the best church for speaking in I ever 
saw— and were willing to make all the sacrifices 
that were necessary to accommodate it to our use ; 
and I received through a third party a letter mak- 
ing that proffer. But while this matter was in nego- 
tiation, the House had settled down to satisfaction 
with the present building, the Committee to whom 
the subject belonged having made so many 
admirable improvements for our accommodation. 
Therefore I only showed the letter to many mem- 



bers of the House. I now give its substance to the 

whole House, that we may consider it in connection 
with this request. I hope that this invitation will 
be accepted, and, if not, that, at all events, the 
hearty thanks of the House will be rendered to these 
gentlemen for their kindly and generous offer, 
showing that we are, in heart, in affection, in so 
many most important respects, one. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. I move that 
we accept the invitation, with the concm'rence of the 
House of Bishops. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. Allow me to 
say , also, that the proposition was made to the dele- 
gation from. New York, to have the use of that 
church for the holding of this Convention, but it 
was not received until after the delegation had had 
their meeting, and had made all the arrangements 
for accepting the use of this church, and had ad- 
journed, and it was too late to revise their decision. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Before we ac- 
cept this invitation, I think "a little consideration 
will be necessary ; and without wishing to be ap- 
pointed on the Committee, I think it would be much 
better that a Committee should be appointed to act 
jointly with a Committee of the House of Bishops, 
to take into consideration what building shall be 
used for the closing services. Then this invitation 
can be laid before that Committee, and they can 
consider all the points relating to the matter. 

The PRESIDENT. If you desire to refer it to 
any committee, we have already a Committee on 
the Closing Services of the Convention, to which it 
ought to be referred. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. Very weU. I 
move, then, that it be referred to that Committee. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that this invita- 
tion be referred to the Committee on the Closing 
Services of the Convention. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The hour for the recess having an-ived, the House 
took a recess till 2 o'clock p.m., at which time the 
President resumed the chair. 

lectionary for lent, etc. 

A message ( No. 60 ) from the House of Bishops, 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolutions : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That the Table of Lessons, reported by the Joint 
Committee on the Table of Lessons for week days in 
Lent, be authorized for use until the next General 
Convention ; provided, the same shall be approved 
by the Bishop of each diocese or missionary district 
respectively. 

" Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring). 
That the Joint Committee be continued in charge of 
this matter for its more thorough consideration, and 
to afford opportunity for such improvements as may 
be suggested by its actual use. 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring). 
That the Table of Lessons for the Ember and Ro- 
gation Days presented herewith be authorized for 
use on the same conditions as the Table of Lessons 
for Lent." 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move that we concur in 
those resolutions. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. It wiU be ob- 
served that those are precisely the resolutions 
which were considered in this House yesterday. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The Commit- 
tee on Amendments to the Constitution have a re- 
port to offer on that matter. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Then I offer 
the following as a substitute : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concun-ing), 
That the Lectionary for week days in Lent, report- 
ed by the Joint Committee on that subject, together 
with that for the Rogation and Ember Days, pre- 



301 



sented by the same Committee, is hereby proposed 
as an addition in the Prayer-Book, and that it be 
made known by the Secretary of this body to the 
Convention of every Diocese of this Church, in ac- 
cordance ^^'ith the provision of Ai^tice Vlll. of the 
Constitution, as matter for final action at the next 
General Convention." 

The PRESIDENT. Is that to go on the Calendar 
as a proposed amendment to the resolutions in the 
message of the House of BishciJS ? 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. If this matter 
is committed to the commission on the revision of 
the Rubrics, as is proposed by some, it will take six 
years before we ai*e able to derive any sort of bene- 
fit from it. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island.. Will the House 
allow me one word ? There is a report in regard to 
Article VIII. that is to be brought up here, in which 
the Committee have proposed to the Convention such 
a revision of Article VIII. as will allow these ob- 
jects to be gained by a Canon, and it seems to me un- 
wise to decide to put through another process until 
that matter has been discussed and settled. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Is that on the 
Calendar ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Yes, sir. 

Mr, McCRAD Y, of South Carolina. Let me say 
that that does not cover it at aU. I hope the gen- 
tleman from New York will have his Lectionary 
adopted independent of anything else. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I think so. 
Then this is the resolution which I offer as a substi- 
tute for the resolutions which have come down from 
the House of Bishops. 

The PRESIDENT. It will go on the Calendar. 

NEW DIOCESE IN WISCONSIN. 

A message (No. 61) from the House of Bishops 
announced that that House had concurred in Mes- 
sage No. 40 from the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies, giving the consent of the General Conven- 
tion to the erection of a new Diocese within the 
limits of the present Diocese of Wisconsin. 

PRESIDING BISHOP. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I move 
that the report of the Special Committee in relation 
to the Senior and Presiding Bishop, be taken from 
the Calendar and referred to the Committee on Ex- 
penses, striking out the word "instructed " and in- 
serting the word "requested " in the resolution rela- 
tive to that Committee. 

The motion was agreed to. 

MISSIONARY BISHOPS. 

The PRESIDENT. The order of the day for two 
o'clock is the action on the nomination of Mission- 
ary Bishops, on which the House sits with closed 
doors. Persons not members of the Convention will 
please retire from the Church. 

The church having been cleared, the Rouse pro- 
ceeded to consider with closed doors the nomina- 
tions of Missionary Bishops sent down by the House 
* of Bishops. The result was tbe election of Rev. 
Alexander C. Garrett, d.d., as Missionary Bishop of 
Northern Texas, Rev. Robert W. B. EUiott as Mis- 
sionary Bishop of Western Texas, and of Rev. John 
H. D. Wingfield, d.d., as Missionary Bishop of 
Northern California. 

THE HYMNAL. 

A message (No. 62) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolutions: 

"Resolved, That this House concurs in Message 
No. 48 of the House of Deputies so far as relates to 
the first resolution contained therein (concerning 
the Hymnal). 



"Resolved, That the House of Bishops does not 
concur in the second resolution of Message No. 48, 
from the House of Deputies, for the reason that in 
their judgment it is inexpedient at this time to sug- 
gest a revision of the Hymnal at an early day." 

On motion of Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut, it 
was 

"Ordered, That this House adhere to its action 
on the second resolution referred to in the message, 
and ask for a committee of conference thereon." 

Rev. Dr. Schenck, of Long island, Rev. Dr. Rud- 
der, of Pennsylvania, and Mr, Trowbridge, of Mich- 
igan, were appointed the committee on the part of 
this House. 

CLOSING- EXERCISES. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York, submitted the 
following report : 

The Committee on the Closing Exercises of the 
General Convention on the part of this House, to 
whom was referred the invitation of the Rector and 
Corporation of the Church of the Holy Trinity to 
meet in the esiince in which that congregation wor- 
ships, offer the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That this House returns its grateful 
acknowledgments to the Rector and Corporation 
of the Church of tHe Holy Trinity for their courte- 
ous invitation, but this House is unwilling to leave 
the chapel in which its dehberations have been held, 
most generously placed at its disposal by the vestry 
of Trinifcy Church, which it is believed will be suffi- 
ciently convenient for the final exercises of the 
General Convention." 

THOS. F. DAVIES, Chairman. 

The resolution was considered and agreed to. 

The hour of adjournment having arrived, the 
House adjourned until to-morrow at nine o'clock 

A.M. 



TWENTY-FIRST DAY. 

Friday, October 30, 
The Convention assembled in St, John's Chapel at 
nine a,m. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psal- 
ter by Rev, Charles S. Spencer, of Delaware. The 
Lessons were read by Rev. Theodore P. Barber, of 
Saston. The Creed and Prayers were said by Rev. 
William H. Clarke, of Georgia. The Benediction 
was pronounced by the E.ight Rev, William Cros- 
weU Doane, d.d., Bishop of Albany. 

The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read 
and approved. 

TESTIMONIALS OF MISSIONARY BISHOPS. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I offer the 
following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the House do now proceed to 
sign the testimonials of the Missionary Bishops-elect 
for Northern and Western Texas and Northern Cali- 
fornia. " 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Cannot this be 
done this afternoon ? 

The PRESIDENT. At any time during the day. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island, There is no necessity 
to suspend business for that ? 

Rev. Dr, WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Oh, no ; it 
saves the time of the House. The testimonials are 
at the desk, and can be signed by members during 
the day. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

SECRET SESSION. 

Mr, WELSH, of Peimsylvania. I move that we 
go into secret session this "afternoon at four o'clock. 
That will give ample time ; and it is important that 
the work should be completed. 



302 



The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the House 
sit with closed doors this afternoon at four o'clock, 
to act on nominations of Missionary Bishops. 

The motion was agreed to. 

liEAA'TJS OF ABSENCE. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky. I am in- 
structed by the Committee on Elections to report 
that leaves of absence for the remainder of the ses- 
sion have been granted to Rev. Mr. Munford, and 
Messrs. Daniel and Dotterer.of the Diocese of Florida ; 
Eev. Mr. Cxoodwin, of Rhode Island ; Rev. Dr. Sul- 
livan, of Illinois ; Rev. Mr. Pettis, of Kentucky ; 
Rev. Dr. Norton, of Virginia ; Mr. Dawson, of 
Alabama ; Mr. Simpson, of Missouri ; Mr. "Whittle, 
of Georgia ; Mr. Battle, of North Carolina ; Mr. 
Baldwin, of Michigan ; Mr. Hazelhui'st, of Pennsyl- 
vania, and Messrs. Cuyler and Parshall, of Western 
New York. 

The Committee further report that Rev. P. M. 
Gregg has presented satisfactory evidence of his 
appointment as Supplementary Deputy, in place of 
Rev. Edward Sullivan, d.d., of the Diocese of 
Illinois. 

BOARD OF MISSIONS. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. The Committee 
on the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society are 
ready to present the resolutions which were recom- 
mitted yesterday. Allow me to say in advance of 
what I am about to present, that it is fair to the 
Committee to say that the resolutions offered by 
them yesterday morning were put into their hands 
by the Board of Missions. They acted but as their 
mouth-piece, and as those resolutions came before 
the Committee only a moment or two. in advance of 
our coming into the House, some of us (and among 
them the Chairman), who had not been present at 
the meeting of the Board the night previous, were 
not quite prepared to defend them or even to under- 
sta,nd them. Those resolutions, so far as objected 
to, v/ere recommitted, and under the new shape 
which one of them has taken, under the direction of 
the Board of Missions, it is now brought before you 
this morning : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the twelfth article of the Constitution of the 
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
of America be amended by adding to it the follow- 
ing words : 

" ' it being understood that the provisions of this 
article do not preclude the Executive Committee 
from making pecimiary appropriations in aid of 
missions under the care of other churches in com- 
munion with the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the United States of America, or of employing 
laymen or women who are members of this Church 
to do missionary work.' " 

If it be needful, I will explain, but if there be no 
call for explanation I offer the resolution for adop- 
tion. 

The resolution weis agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I also offer the 
following from the Committee : 

"Whereas, The proposed increase m the Episco- 
pate for Domestic and Foreign Missions, and the 
call for greater efficiency in missions to the Indian 
and the colored races, evinces a large development 
of missionary zeal and faith, and will require a 
liberal supply of men and money ; therefore, 

" Resolved, That each parish minister be requested 
to disseminate information likely to develop an 
intelUgent zeal for missions, and also to form or- 
ganizations that each parish may become a mis- 
sionary training-school, and that contributions for 
missions may be systematically collected." 

I move the adoption of that resolution. 

The resolution was agreed to. 



COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS. 
Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. Mr. President, 
if you will allow me, while on the floor, I will pre- 
sent a resolution that has been placed in my 
hands : 

"Resolved, That the action of this House in re- 
appointing the members of the Committee of Lay- 
men on Indian Affairs be communicated to the 
House of Bishops for their concurrence, the said 
Committee consisting of Messrs. Yv^'illiam Welsh, 
John W. Andi-ews, John W. Stevenson, Hugh W. 
Sheffey, Benjamin Stark, and Henry A. Hayden." 

The SECRETARY. I would state in regard to 
this matter,. that this House appointed the Commit- 
tee of its own motion, as was the x?ase at the last 
General Convention. The House of Bishops has 
agreed to act in this matter, ana sent down a mes- 
sage informing us that with ovu* concurrence they 
would appoint such a Committee. As we have al- 
ready appointed the members of that Committee, it 
now seems but just that we should send to the House 
of Bishops the names of those whom we have ap- 
pointed, for them to confirm or reject, as they 
please. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

ELECTION OF MISSIOISARY BISHOPS. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. By the action 
of the Committee on Canons this morning I am au- 
thorized to ask general consent to bring in a matter 
of new business in order to have it referred to that 
Committee. If I have general consent, I should 
like to present it to the House immediately. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I move that the rule 
be suspended in order that we may hear what it is. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. It is simply 
this : After the first sentence of the first subsection 
of the seventh section of Canon 13 of Title I., page 
61 of the Digest, relating to the nomination and 
election of Missionary Bishops, it is moved to refer 
this resolution : 

" Resolved, That "—at the place I have mentioned 
— " these words be inserted : ' and if the nomina- 
tion ' "—that is made by the Bishops— " 'and if the 
nomination is made during, or within six months 
before, the meeting of the General Convention, the 
House of Bishops shall nominate at least two per- 
sons for each missionary district for which a Bishop 
is to be chosen ; and a majority of ail the clerical 
and of all the lay votes cast by Dioceses in the House 
of Deputies shall be necessary to an election. ' " 

The object of this resolution is exceedingly simple. 
As the Canon stands, the House of Deputies is re- 
quested to elect a Bishop on a nomination made by 
the House of Bishops. As the fact stands, the House 
of Bishops elect the Bishop, and the House of Depu- 
ties simnly confu'm or reject the Bishop elected and 
sent down by the House of Bishops. It is felt bv 
many of us to be a hardship, that in voting on such 
nominations we are obliged either to confirm an 
election or to reject a brother. It is felt that it may 
sometimes be exceedingly damaging to a man sim- 
ply to be rejected after being nominated, and im- 
properly damaging to a man. Hence many of us 
have felt that we should like to have at least two 
names sent down to us, that there might be a reality 
in the power of election, and that though one broth- 
er be preferred the other brother is not of necessity 
rejected. 

I move this resolution : that after the first sen- 
tence of the first subsection of Section 7, of Canon 
13, of Title I., these words be inserted : 

"And if the nommation be made during, or within 
six months before, the meeting of the General Con- 
vention, the House of Bishops shall nominate at 
least two persons for each Missionary District for 
which a Bishop is to be chosen, and a majority of 
aU the clerical and of all the lay votes cast by Dio- 



303 



ceses in the House of Deputies shall be necessary to 
an election," 

I move that this be referred to the Committee on 
Canons. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maiyland. That can only be done 
by general consent. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I object. It would 
lead to debate. It is a very debatable question, in 
my judgment. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I hope the gen- 
tleman wiU withdraw his objection. The thing is 
simply this, the names of reputable clergy are sent 
dovm to us whose character we do not want to in- 
jm'e. If simply one man is sent down there is 
almost always a feehng that that one man has been 
rejected for some cause or other. If you take the 
principle that the gentleman from Alabama has 
brought forth from Christian antiquity, then in that 
case there is no difficulty, and no man's character is 
injured, 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. Allow me. I have 
been so much pressed about it that I withdraw my 
objection to the reference of this proposition. 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I wish to en- 
quii-e what is the precise motion, to suspend the 
rules, or to act on the proposed amendment i 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I move to refer 
it to the Committee on Canons. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion is to refer this 
resolution to the Committee on Canons. 

The motion was agreed to. 

REPUBLICATION OF EARLY JOURN.ALS. 

The SECRETARY submitted the following re- 
port: 

" The Joint Conunittee on the Republication of the 
Early Journals, dating its first appointment back to 
the Convention of 1859, and charged with a duty 
which for many years had occupied the attention of 
the General Convention, respectfully report that the 
objects of their appointment having been accom- 
phshed so far as the Republication of the Journals 
of the Conventions 1785-1835 inclusive are con- 
cerned, they beg leave to be discharged. The Com- 
mittee, as a sirbple matter of justice, would state 
that the editorial labor in the preparation of this 
reprtut, extending over a period of twelve years, 
has been performed without cost to the Convention 
or the Chm-ch, and that by the addition of a volume 
of historical papers prepared from the MSS. in the 
Archives of the Church by the Historiographer, 
which the publishers of the present edition regard 
as ensuring the sale of the reprint, and the prepara- 
tion of which was also a labor of love, the plates of 
the reprinted journals, after the publication of a 
limited number, become the property of the Gen- 
eral Convention, and give for the future the means 
for the reissue of the whole series of our journals 
when that shall be deemed desirable. 

" The Committee have instructed the Secretary of 
the Convention to purchase for the Convention the 
twenty-five sets ordered by a preceding Convention, 
and for the purpose previously designated. All of 
which is respectfully submitted. 

H. POTTER, Chairman of Joint 

Committee on the part of the House of Bishops. 
WM. COOPER MEAD, Chairman of Joint 

Committee on the part of the House of Deputies. 

"Resolved, (the House of Bishops concurriug) 
That the Jotut Committee on the Republication of 
the Early Journals be discharged, and that the Con- 
vention express its satisfaction at the successful 
completion of the work committed to its care." 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the reso- 
lution. 

The resolution was agreed to. 



RUSSO-GREUK COMMITTIJE. 

The SECRETARY. By permission of the Presi- 
dent I talce this opportunity of exhibiting to the 

j Convention the letters which have been received by 
the Secretary of the Russo-Greek Committee from 
the Eastern Patriarchs and Bishops, which become 
a portion of the Archives of the General Convention 
and are most interesting from their bearing on the 
great question of inter-communion. The letters are 
in Modern Greek, and with the seals of the Patri- 

i archs attached ; and they are certainly of interest, 
and translations of them from time to time have 
been furnished to the Church papers, 

[The handsomely bound album containing the let- 
ters was handed ai'ound for examiuation by mem- 

. bers of the House.] 

I CONTROVERSIES IN PARISHES. 

I Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carohna. I beg 
i leave to submit the following report : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
Message No, 30 from the House of Bishops, propo- 
sing certain amendments of Canon 4, Title II., of 
Differences between ministers and their congrega- 
I tions, and of the uissolution of Pastoral Connection, 
i I'espectfuUy report that they have considered the 
i same, and recommend the adoption of the following 
resolutions, which will be virtually a concurrence 
with the House of Bishops in the amendment pro- 
posed in the above-mentioned message, except as to 
Section III. of the Canon, which is to be provided 
for in a subsequent report from this Committee. 
The pui'pose of the particular action recommended 
is to comply with the provisions of Canon 2, Title 
IV. , as to the form of amending the Canons : 

"I, Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, 
that Section 1 of Canon 4 of Title II. is hereby 
amended so as to read as follows : 

" Sec. 1. In case of a controversy between any 
Rector or Assistant Minister of any Church or 
Parish and the Vestry or Congregation of such 
Church or Parish, which cannot be settled by them- 
selves, the parties, or either of them, may refer the 
matter to the Bishop of the Diocese, who may, 
thereupon, notify each of the contesting parties to 
furnish him with the names of thi^ee Presb3rters of 
the Diocese, The Bishop shall add to them the 
names of three other Presbyters, and the whole 
number shall then be reduced to five, by striking off 
the names alternately by each of the contesting 
parties. Should either party refuse or neglect to 
name three Presbyters, or to strike from the list, as 
aforesaid, the Bishop shall act for the parties so re- 
fusing or neglecting. And in all the proceedings 
aforesaid the v estry or Congregation, as the case may 
be, shall be represented by some layman of their 
number, duly selected by them for the purpose : 
Provided, that the party or parties applying as above 
shall have fii'st given the Bishop satisfactory assur- 
ance of compliance with whatever may be required 
of them as the final issue of such proceediugs. 

" II. As now, except the substitution for the words 
'make apphcation to the Bishop of the Diocese who 
shall ' these words ' refer the matter to the Bishop 
of the Diocese who may.' Printed copy of the sec- 
tion with this alteration, inserted in the original re- 
port. 

"III. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That Section 5, of Canon 4, of Title 11., is hereby re- 
I pealed. 

1 "IV. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
I that section 8, of Canon 4, of Title II., is hereby 
! amended, so as to read as follows : 

" Sec. 8. This Canon shall not be obligatory upon 
any Diocese which has made, or shall hereafter 
make, provision by Canon upon this subject, or with 
whose laws or charters it may interfere. " 
This is substantially a concurrence of the House 



304 



6f Bishops, it is only changed a little in form in 
order to comply with the requisitions of the Canon 
4 on that subject. I move that this resolution be 
adopted by the House. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I should like to 
have that considered before its adoption. It is a 
very important tna,tter to us Presbyters. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. I desire to know 
what is the extent of the change effected. I hope 
that the gentleman who made the report will ex- 
plain what change is made in the section. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. The 
change made is in the first section of the Canon. It 
is on page 89 of the Digest. At present I beUeve 
the words in the fifth hne are " The parties, or 
either of them, may make application to the Bisliop 
of the Diocese, who shall thereupon. " The change, 
and the only change, is this, " May refer the matter 
to the Bishop of the Diocese, who may thereupon." 
That is all. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. It gives the 
Bishop a discretion ? 

Rev. Dr. ATSON, of North Carolina. Makes 
it more discretionary ; that is the whole change. I 
move the adoption of the resolution. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I object to the 
adoption of it, and therefore it must go on the Cal- 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be placed 
on the Calendar. 

CANON ON RITUAL. 

A message (No. 63) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced that that House concurred in Message No. 
43 from the House of Deputies, with the following 
amendments : 

" 1st. Strike out in Subsection 1 of the proposed 
additional Section 3, to be added to Canon 20, Title 
I. , the words, ' not ordained or authorized in the 
Book of Common Prayer, and setting forth or sym- 
bolizing erroneous or doubtful doctrines, ' and in- 
sert in their stead the words, ' which set forth or 
symbolize erroneous or doubtf ul doctrines, and cere- 
monies, and practices, not ordained or authorized 
by the Book of Common Prayer.' 

" 2d. Strike out in the same Subsection 2 all those 
words enclosed within parentheses, beginning with 
the words, 'and, as examples,' and endino- with the 
words, ' Book of Common Prayer, ' being the follow- 
ing words : 

" (And, as examples, the following are declared 
to be considered as such : 
" a. The use of incense. 

" &. The placing, or carrying, or retaining a cru- 
cifix in any part of the place of public worship. 

" c. The Elevation of the Elements in the Holy 
Communion in such manner as to expose them to 
the view of people as objects toward which adora- 
tion is to be made. 

" d. Any act of adoration of or toward the Ele- 
ments in the Holy Communion, such as bowing, 
prostrations, genuflections, and all such like acts not 
authorized or allowed by the Rubrics of the Book 
of Common Prayer." 

"3d. Strike out in the second subsection of said 
proposed Section 2, of Canon 20, Title I., the word 
' by ' in the third line of said Subsection 2, and in- 
sert in its stead the words ' or that.' 

" 4th. Insert in the fourth line of the same Sub- 
section 2, after the words ' authorized as aforesaid ' 
the words ' have been introduced.' " 

Mr. SHEPFEY, of Virginia. I move that the 
message be referred to the Committee on Canons. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I second that, 
with a motion that they be requested to report as 
soon as possible, and have leave to sit during'the ses- 
sion of the House. 

The motion was agreed to. 



ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. 

A message (No. 64) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

Resolved (the House of Deputies concm-ring), 
That the foliovving clause be added to Section 1, of 
Canon 1, of Title III., of the Digest : 

"[4] The rules of order of the House of Deputies 
shall be in force in the ensuing General Convention, 
until the organization thereof, and until they be 
amended or repealed by the said House J' 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. If i understand 
that, the House of Bishops merely concur in our 
rules of order. I move, therefore, that we concur 
in that message. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I ask that it go on 
the Calendar. 

The SECRETARY. It is already on the Calen- 
dar. The m,otion is too late. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I move 
to concur. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I object to that at 
this time, and I will state my reasons at the proper 
time. 

The PRESIDENT. Objection is made. The 
message goes on the Calendar. 

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I sub- 
mit the following report : 

' ' The Committee on Canons, to whom was recom- 
mitted their report No. 4, relating to Canon 4, Title 
II., ' Of Differences between Ministers and their Con- 
gregations, and of the Dissolution of a Pastoral 
Connection,' respectfully report that they have re- 
considered the same, and recommend the adoption 
of the amendments to the said Canon contained in 
the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That Sections 2 and 3 of Canon 4, of Title II., ' Of 
Differences between Ministers and their Congrega- 
tions, and of the Dissolution of a Pastoral Connec- 
tion,' be amended so as to read as follows : 

"Sec. 2. The five Presbyters thus designated 
shall constitute a Board of Reference to consider 
such controversy ; and shall meet in the city or 
county in which such rector or assistant minister 
lives, or elsewhere, as the parties may agree. It 
shall be the duty of such Board to adjust, if possible, 
the differences without dissolving the connection be- 
tween the rector or assistant minister and the vestry 
or congregation ; and for this purpose the Board is 
empowered to recommend terms of settlement ; and 
if, after hearing such allegations and proofs as the 
parties may submit, a majority of the Presbyters, 
the whole Board being present, shall be of opinion 
that there is no favorable termination of such con- 
troversy, a,nd that a dissolution of the connection 
between such rector or assistant minister and his 
parish or congregation is necessary to restore the 
peace of the church and promote its prosperity, 
such Presbyters shall recommend to the Bishop that 
such minister shall be required to relinquish his con- 
nection with such church or parish, on such con- 
ditions as may appear to them proper and reasonable, 
including the adjustment of all pecuniary claims 
between the parties. 

"Sec. 3. If the Bishop approve the recommen- 
dation of the Presbyters, and if the rector or as- 
sistant minister refuse to comply with the require- 
ment of the Bishop and Presbyters, made in pur- 
suance of such recommendation, the Bishop shall 
proceed to forbid him the exercise of any minis- 
terial functions within the Diocese, until he shall re- 
tract his refusal ; and if he persist in his refusal, it 
shall be the duty of the Bishop to dissolve the con- 
nection between the said rector and vestry or con- 
gregation ; or if the vestry or congregation shall 



refuse to comply witli any such recommendation, 
they shall not be allowed any representation in the 
Diocesan Convention until they shall have retracted 
their refusal. " 
Now let me state in brief what changes are made : 
" The five Presbyters thus designated shall consti- 
tute a Board of Reference to consider such contro- 
versy." 

So far, it is as the Canon now reads. Now comes 
the change : 

"And shall meet in the city or county in which 
such rector or assistant minister lives, or elsewhere, 
as the parties may agree." 

That is to fix the venue and make it not too in- 
convenient or impracticable for the poor minister, 
who, in one instance, has been called two hundred 
or three hundi'ed miles away. Then this is also in- 

" It shall be the duty of such Board to adjust, if 
possible, the diffei-ences without dissolving the con- 
nection between the rector or assistant minister and 
the vestry or congregation ; and for this purpose 
the Board is empowered to recommend terms of 
settlement." 

In order that this Board may not be constituted 
merely to consider the dissolution of the connection, 
but it possible to sustain it by mediation between 
the parties. Then the Canon proceeds just as at 
present, excepting at the close, where it is provided 
that in making terms those terms may include the 
adjustment of all pecuniary claims between the 
parties. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. May I ask a 
question ? I see that you have a kind of verdict pro- 
vided for. Have you also provided by a change in 
the Canon that those who last give their verdict 
shall have heard all the evidence ? Is that provided 
for? 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. That is 
provided for. 
Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I did not hear 

it. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. ' ' If after 
such allegations and proofs as the parties may sub- 
mit, a majority of the Presbyters, the whole Board 
being present," etc. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Does it require 
that every member shall be present ? 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. " A ma- 
jority of the Presbyters, the whole Board being 
present." 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. At the verdict, 
but not at the hearing of the evidence. Let the re- 
port go on the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolutions will be placed 
on the Calenda.r. 

RESOLUTION OF THANKS. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. I ask the pri- 
vilege of offering a resolution which I think will 
cause no discussion and will pap.s unanimously. If 
there be any question in regard to the latter portion 
of the resolution it can be explained in a single mo- 
ment. 

"Resolved, That this Convention tenders its cor- 
dial thanks to the Churchmen of New York, for 
their generous hospitality, and especially to the 
corporation of Trinity Church for daily entertain- 
ment, and the ample accommodations provided for 
the transaction of business and other acts indica- 
tive of their liberality. Also it desii^es to express 
its obligations to the rector, wardens, and vestry- 
men of the Church of the Holy Trinity for the 
kind and disinterested offer of their Church for the 
use of the Convention." 

Rev. Dr. CAD Y, of New York. We have already 
done that. We returned our thanks for their cour- 
teous offer yesterday evening. 



Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. This has refer- 
ence to the offer of the use of the Church for the 
whole Convention. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I beg pardon. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. The Chair is 
my authority for saying that he had a correspon- 
dence some time ago on this subject, and it is at his 
suggestion that I have added this addition to the 
resolution. I move the passage of the resolution. 

The resolution was adopted unanimously. 

LECTIONARY FOR LENT, ETC. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I suggest that we go 
regnilarly to the Calendar. I move to take it up. 
The motion was agreed to. 

The SECRETARY. The first business on the 
Calendar is the report of the Joint Committee to 
prepare a new Lectionary for week days in Lent ; 
and in connection therewith there is a message 
from the House of Bishops. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I move to pass that 
by until the Committee on Canons return. That is 
an important matter. That Committee, one of the 
most important committees of the House, is in ses- 
sion by leave of the House. I move to pass this by 
until they return. 

The motion was agreed to. 

EPISCOPATE IN NEW DIOCESES. 

The next business on the Calendar was the report 
of the Committee on Amendments to the Constitu- 
tion, made on the fifteenth day of the session, re- 
specting the requirement of a fund for the support 
of the Episcopate, which report submitted the fol- 
lowing resolutions for the action of the House : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the Fifth Article of the Constitution be amend- 
ed by striking out the following words, ' and such 
consent shall not be given by the General Conven- 
tion, uutH it has satisfactory assm-ance of a suita- 
ble provision for the support of the Episcopate in 
the contemplated new Diocese. ' 

"Resolved, That such amendment be notified to 
the several Diocesan Conventions, in accordance 
with the Ninth Article of the Constitution, so that 
the same may be agreed to or ratified by the next 
General Convention." 

Mr. FAIRBANKS, of Tennessee. I ask that the 
report of the Committee be read. That is the best 
speech which can be made on the subject. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

" The Committee on Constitutional Amendments, 
to whom was referred the Memorial from the 
Diocese of Tennessee, asking for an Amendment of 
Ai'ticle V. of the Constitution by omitting the 
words, ' and such consent shall not'be given by the 
General Convention until it has satisfactory 
assurance of a suitable provision for the support of 
the Episcopate in the contemplated new Diocese,' 
respectfully report that the clause proposed to be 
omitted stand as a Limitation upon the right of 
creating any new Diocese from one, or more than 
one, of the existing Dioceses of this Church. It is 
a restriction of recent origin, having been first pro- 
posed as a Constitutional Amendment by the Gen- 
eral Convention of 1868, and ratified by the Con- 
vention of 1871. It has therefore been a part of 
the law of the Church for only three years. The 
Memorial from the Diocese of Tennessee set forth, 
as we believe truly, that its necessary operation 
is to obstruct and delay the proper work of the 
Church in many parts of the coujitry. There are 
large Dioceses, especially in the Southern and South- 
western States, coincident in boundary with those 
States, over the whole of which Episcopal super- 
vision and ministration is practically impossible, 
and yet when the Church is so feeble, and the 
poverty of the people so great, as to render the 
creation of a fund or endowment for the support 



306 



of a new Episcopate impracticable for the time 
being. Our construction of the clause in question 
is that it requires such an endowment sufficient 
for the support of a Bishop to be actually raised, or 
at least securely provided for. 

"In the judgment of the Committee the poUcy of 
this restraint is more than questionable. It seems 
to us more careful of the dignity of the Episcopate 
than of the spread of the Cnurch or the salvation 
of the souls of men. Under a different policjr, our 
Church, from a feeble beginning, has grown with 
the expansion of om^ Episcopate until we have 
forty -one Dioceses, while more are needed, or will 
soon be needed, to carry forward its beneficent 
work. We begin to feel ah'eady the check imposed 
upon her growth by a constitutional restraint, 
wiiich requires an endowment first to be raised 
when a Cnui^ch can hardly be said to exist. We 
shall more nearly conform to the missionary spirit 
of our Church, more truly follow the law of her 
development, if we first btnld her up in the destitute 
places of our land. Endowment will follow an 
Episcopate, but cannot precede it, except in regions 
wnere the Church Communion is already strong, 
both in numbers and wealth. 

"Of the forty-one Dioceses now existing, there 
are very few in which the Episcopate is supported 
by the income of an adequate fund. If we refer the 
enquiry to om^ whole Church, we shall find that the 
chief basis of support- is parish assessment and con- 
tribution. If this be so, the question is full of sig- 
nificance : What would now be the condition of 
the American Church if, in her infancy, the law of 
her growth had been reversed by a constitutional 
limitation, like the one now in question ? The sup- 
port of a new Episcopate is essentially a matt^er of 
civil contract between the Bishop-elect and the peo- 
ple who call him to be their Chief Pastor, and we 
see no sufficient reason for restraining their action 
by organic law. The elected Bishop, who is chiefly 
concerned in the question, may have the means of 
self-support, and if, with the zeal of a Peter or a 
Paul, a Wilson or a Seiwyn, he is ready to carry the 
message of his Divine Master where it is most need- 
ed, ought we to arrest his steps by a law which cer- 
tainly would have a strange significance in Apostolic 
days ? Or, he also may be poor and yet v/iDing to 
share the poverty of those to whom he is sent, rely- 
ing on them to provide for humble wants, and rely- 
ing yet more on the sustaining power of Divine 
Providence. 

"The Committee recommend to the House the 
adoption of the following resolutions : 

" xlesolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That 
the Elf ch Article of the Constitution be amended by 
striking out the following words, ' and such consent 
shall not be given by the Greneral Convention, until 
it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable provision 
for the support oi the Episcopate in the contempla- 
ted new Diocese.' 

"Hesolved, That such amendment be notified to 
the several Diocesan Conventions, in accordance 
with the Ninth Article of the Constitution, so that 
the same may be agreed to or ratified by the next 
General Convention. 

(Signed) "CHARLES H. HALL, Chairman." 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. I move the 
adoption of the resolution. 

Kev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. Before the 
resolutions are adopted, I have something to say. 
It will be found that prior to the introduction of the 
change which was made in 1868, there was another 
restraint put upon the endless multiplication of 
Dioceses, divisions and subdivisions interminable, 
and that provision was : 

" No such new Diocese shall be formed which shall 
contain less than fifteen self-supporting parishes, or 
less than fifteen Presbyters, who have been at least 



one year canonicaUy resident within the bounds of 
such" new Diocese." 

It was thought that this was requiring too large a 
number of Presbyters, and too large a number of 
self-supporting Parishes, and, therefore, the number 
Vv^as reduced, as will be seen by the next clause of 
the Fifth Article, as it now stands, to six self-sup- 
porting Parishes and six Presbyters. But as a set-off 
to this great reduction of the number of Parishes 
and Presbyters, it was found absolutely necessary, 
in order to sustain the dignity of the office or to se- 
cure suitable provision for a Bishop who might be 
elected and then left without support, and be in a 
worse position than a parish minister, to introduce 
this provision, to which objection is now made : 
"Until it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable 
provision for the support of the Episcopate in the 
contemplated new Diocese." 

Sti'ike that out and where are you ? Any Diocese 
may be subdivided so that there are only six par- 
ishes and six Presbyters in a new Diocese that may 
be erected. Ai-e you prepared to allow that without 
the assurance of a support for the Bishop, and will 
it be possible for six parishes and six Presbyters to 
support suitably the Episcopate ? Have we any as- 
surance that they will be able to continue to exist 
as self-supporting parishes, even if they are such at 
the time they make the application ? 

Look at the article which exists in our Constitu- 
tion as it stands before us in the Jommal of 1871. 
I happen to be the Chairman of the Committee on 
New Dioceses, and I am able to state what interpre- 
tation that Committee — after mature deliberation, 
after a full discussion, in which we all harmonized 
— put upon this provision : ' ' Until it has satis- 
factory assurance of a suitable provision for 
the suiDport of the Episcopate in the con- 
templated new Diocese. " We ail know the fact that 
the large Diocese of Vii'ginia has not one dollar of 
Episcopal fund, that it prefers not to have a doUar 
of fund, for various and, as we conceive, good and 
substantial reasons, the first being that we deem it a 
matter of principle that each generation should sup- 
ply itself with the means of grace. " The laborer is 
worthy of his hire"— from whom ? From the ances- 
tors of those to v/hom he ministers ? Assur- 
edly not. We therefore make provision that 
each year the then communicants of the 
Chm'ch shall contribute ratably one dollar 
apiece ; the parishes are assessed, but the rate is ac- 
cording to the number of communicants. The re- 
sult is not a particle of difficulty in raising enough 
for the support of our Bishops. We know of in- 
stances where this plan exists in other Dioceses, and 
it has worked well. There is a further reason why, as 
I conceive, in regard to funds, there are various 
difficulties and objections. In the fii'st place, they 
are not absolutely secure. Riches, in the form of 
an Episcopal fund, as well as in other forms, may 
take to themselves wings and fly away. 

In the next place such things expose parties to 
temptation to defraud the Church, and there are 
numberless cases on record in which scandal has 
been brought on the Christian Chm'ch and name by 
speculations in church funds. We therefore prefer 
tne plan we pm^sue. 

Again, and lastly, we have acted under the con- 
ception that this language does not require an en- 
dowment. That word is not used, and my memory 
is clear that the objection was raised m 1868 and 
overruled, and it was held that no endowment was re- 
quired. It was left to the Committee on the Admis- 
sion of new Dioceses in the first instance, subject to 
the ruling of this body, to say whether or not any 
provision made was sufficient or suitable, and whe- 
ther they had satisfactory assurance of its being 
provided. In the case of the two Dioceses absolute- 
ly admitted in this Convention, the provision is pre- 



807 



cisely that of Virginia. In the case of the new Dio- 
cese in Ohio, the Committee had before them the 
fact that for fifteen years, I thinlc, the 
support of both Dioceses had been provided 
by assessment on the parishes, which had al- 
ways been properly paidf They had the further 
assurance that in the new Dioceses the larger 
proportion of that suppoi^t had been contributed, 
and that all the prominent parishes had given assu- 
rances by letter that they would continue to pay 
their assessments, and, if necessary, pay twenty- 
five per cent. more. The Committee therefore 
ruled that that was a snfiicient provision for the 
support of the Episcopate, and that it was absoluie- 
ly more sure than any invested fund that the 
Diocese could hold, " inasmuch as it was 
the obligation of every parish in the pro- 
posed new Diocese, and the number was abun- 
dant to provide a support. In the case of Wiscon- 
sin, where another Diocese is set off, partial pro- 
vision was made by an endowment to the extent of 
fifteen thousand dollars, and the rest provided for 
by assessment. Now, I contend that there is noth- 
mg in this language to establish the ruling which 
the Committee on Constitutional Amendments has 
adopted ; but suitable provision in both these cases 
was made for the Episcopate, and we had satisfac- 
tory assurance that it was made. Therefore, I do 
not see any necessity for striking out this clause. 
On the contrary, there is strong reason for its con- 
tinuance. 

Mr. PAIRBAKES, of Tennessee. Mr. President, 
I hoped that the time of the Convention would not 
unnecessarily be occupied with this subject, and 
therefore I contented myself with requesting that 
the report of the Committee be read. But as the 
question of the construction of this clause is brought 
up, I will state as an historical fact that in 1871 the 
Diocese of Illinois did a,pply for the division of that 
Diocese, and that the House of Bishops did rule not 
only that it meant an endowment, but that it meant 
an endowment of forty thousand dollars. Now, 
from the very language of the provision, if it means 
anything, it does mean endowment. 

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. Will the gentle- 
man allow me to put in a remembrancer there ? With 
regard to the application from Illinois, I was not 
Chairman then, but a member of the Committee on 
the Admission of New Dioceses ; and in that case no 
assurance was given. It was only said that thii'ty 
thousand dollars would be raised; there was no as- 
surance that it would be raised. 

Mr. FAIRBANKS, of Tennessee. I think that the 
logical sequence and constraction of that clause is 
that it does mean endowment ; for otherwise how 
can you have " satisfactory assurance " ? In what 
other form can anybody be bound than by obliga- 
tion or endowment of some kind ^ If it means the 
ordinary parish assessment, that varies from 
year to year. You cannot give a satisfac- 
tory assurance for this year, or next year, or 
any subsequent year in that way. You cannot 
bind a parish for the future. Its legislation is an- 
nual legislation. It rests with the Wardens and { 
Vestry, and whether they pay their assessment or | 
not is a matter with them. There is no legal obli- j 
gation upon them. If it means that, if it means | 
simjDly an assessment on the parishes, then what is 
the necessity of the clause at all ? | 

Is not the matter sufficiently guarded without 
this ? How can you divide a Diocese ^ Are you 
not obliged to have the action of the Convention of i 
that Diocese? Have you not the feeling in the Dio- ' 
cese of preserving its unity to guard against any I 
frivolous or mmecessary subdivision ? Does not ' 
every Diocese desire to retain its greatness, its his- ; 
toric character and associations ? You have, there- 
fore, when you come to divide a Diocese, a large 



conservative influence that goes against divi- 
sion in every case. But when the Diocese 
is satisfied in the Diocesan Convention that it would 
be for the benefit of the Church in that Diocese.that 
it should be divided, and they pass that resolution, 
you have still the further check that it must have 
the assent of the Bishop of that Diocese. You have, 
therefore, his sense of dignity, and of jurisdiction, 
and everything of that kind to contend against. If 
he too is satisfied that the Diocese should be divided, 
why not let it be done ? Have you not in these two 
provisions a suJRcient guard against any unneces- 
sary subdivision ? 

If, as is contended by the Clerical Deputy from 
Virginia, the clause means nothing but an assess- 
ment, it is useless, because that assessment will ne- 
cessarily be made, and each Diocese can besfc ar- 
range that matter, either as they do in Virginia, by 
putting a dollar on each comrnunicant, or as they 
do in Tennessee, by assessing £0 much cn the parish, 
or by any other rule that may seem best to them 
for providing for the support of the Episcopate. 
It is not to be supposed that any Diocese 
would go blindly into subdivision, would call any 
gentleman to be a Bishop without providing a satis- 
factory support for him. And why should there be 
a difference made in the case of a subdivided Dio- 
cese from, a new Diocese formed out of a mission- 
ary jiu'isdiction ? If one of our missionary 
jurisdictions wishes to be erected as a Diocese, 
do you require from them any satisfactory 
assurance of the support of the Episcopate ? 
None whatever. Why then should you put a re- 
striction upon what is really missionary ground in 
the whole South and Southwest, a prohibition of 
that kind which does not apply to the missionary 
jurisdictions ? There is no equahty in the provi- 
sion. Moreover, it has operated, and it does ope- 
rate as a practical obstacle and prevention on 
the part of the Southern and Southwestern Dio- 
ceses from any effort at such division. Have you 
any application here from any Southern or South- 
western Diocese for division ? None whatever. 
Whatever may be the value of this provision as re- 
spects che older and larger Dioceses which have 
funds or can procure endowments, it is utterly in- 
applicable to us, and prevents us from having any 
division whatever ; and we are in danger of wear- 
ing out our Bishops, of putting them in an early 
grave by overwork, and checking the growth of the 
Church by this provision. I hope the resolution 
will pass. 

Rev. Dr. STRINGFELLOW, of Alabama, Mr. 
President, I was exceedingly glad when the Deputy 
from Tennessee presented the motion, to refer this 
matter to the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution. When this article was sent down to 
the various Dioceses six years ago as an amendment 
to the Constitution, the Diocese of Alabama voted 
against the amendment simply on account 
of the clause which is now under con- 
sideration. The Deputies were instructed 
to vote "no " in the Convention. When, however, 
the Convention assembled, we determined to vote 
" aye," with the hope that at this Convention a mo- 
tion would be made to strike out what the Diocese 
of Alabama considereci the objectionable clause ; and 
if I remember aright — for this is only the third Con- 
vention that I have been permitted to attend as a 
Deputy— the object contemplated by the change 
in the Constitution originally sent down to 
the Dioceses was in order to relieve especi- 
ally the Diocese of Texas. The application 
was made for reducing the number of clergy re- 
quired so that that Diocese might thereby be divided. 
The clause, however, which was inserted in the 
amendment of the Constitution actually put a stop 
upon any proceeding on the part of the Diocese, 



308 



and we have now elected two Missionary Bishops 
to be sent to Texas, simply because the Diocese of 
Texas was unable to provide for what would have 
been better a division of that Diocese itself. 

I speak, sir, as a Southern man when I say that 
if this Convention had taken any means in order to 
prevent the division of Dioceses, they could not pos- 
sibly have taken a more effectual one than the one 
adopted at the last Convention. It is utterly im- 
possible for any Southern Diocese, from the Poto- 
mac to the Rio Grande, to divide upon the plan 
which has now been accepted. Gentlemen may 
talk as they please about that provision, it has 
been ruled, and is so understood, that it 
means either that there must be an amount of $30,000 
raised and invested, or that there must be a suiS- 
cient guarantee that the Episcopate shall be sup- 
ported from such a fund. I hold that in itself is 
wrong. When I was admitted to the diaconate and 
priesthood the only guarantee that I received that I 
should ever have bread for my family was the grand 
fundamental principle that the man who served at 
the Altar sho'uld live by the Altar. There was 
not a solitary word said in reference to 
any support ; and I hold that we have no right what- 
ever to require any Diocese to guarantee any fixed 
amount in order to support the JJishop. When Paul 
was called to his work, what was it ? He was told 
to go and learn what he was to suffer for the cause 
of Christ, and not to receive five or six thousand 
dollars a year for his support, and the Bishop has no 
more right to have any guarantee when a Diocese 
comes to be divided, except the same which is given 
to every priest of the Church of God, that if he 
serves at the Altar he shaU therefore partake of the 
Altar. 

Let us look at this question for a moment in its 
practical bearings in reference to a large portion of 
the country over which the Church has jurisdiction 
at present. Take the Southern Dioceses; the extent 
of the territory there is well known to every mem- 
ber of this Convention. There are Dioceses to-day 
that could divide as far as their number of clergy- 
men is concerned, and at the same time would un- 
doubtedly provide a fund; but gentlemen will 
please bear in mind that that support is now required 
to be guaranteed before the Diocese divides. Take, 
for example, the Diocese of Alabama. If that Diocese 
desired now to divide, it not only has to 
have a suflScient number of clergymen, but to 
bring up a guarantee from the Diocese which is 
formed from the old one, that a certain amount has 
been secured for the Bishop, without knowing who 
that Bishop is that is to be elected ; whether per- 
haps he may not be a single man who can live on a 
comparatively small amount ; whether the lot 
might not fall upon one who has means of his own 
which he would be glad and willing to spend in the 
service of the Church. I hold tliat the question of 
support is a thing that belongs to the nominee 
alone, and not to this Church. When a clergyman 
is called to a parish, it is for him to decide whether 
the support which is offered to him is sufiicient to 
enable him to live, and not for the Church to say 
that the rector shall have a certain amoimt secured 
to him before he shall be permitted to hold that 
cure. What would be a sufficient amount for one 
man would be quite a princely income for another. 
What would be a princely income to one man, and 
in one place, would be a very small amount to an- 
other. What would be sufficient in this great Dio- 
cese of New York, if it was to be divided and the 
city of New York set apart as a separ- 
ate Diocese, would be a fortune to a man 
in the northern part of Alabama, or the northern 
part of Georgia or in Texas. I hold that the princi- 
ple is entirely wrong; and if this Convention de- 
sire to stop for fifty years the growth of the Church 



in the South and Southwest, they can take no bet- 
ter means than preserving this single article of the 
Constitution as it is. If they desire now to check 
entirely what this Convention has labored to place 
its seal to — the reduction of the jurisdiction of the 
Bishops so as not to be appointing one man to sup- 
pervise such a large portion of country — this article 
will be retained as it is. The Convention has already 
given its seal to that principle, and here is an em- 
bargo to the very action which, by their conduct 
six years ago, in sending this article to the various 
Dioceses, and three years ago in ratifying it solemn- 
ly, they committed themselves to. 

Nov;- let every Diocesan Convention decide for 
itself in this matter. As it has been well said, there 
can be no danger in it. The Bishop himself, occu- 
pying the position that he does, can always check a 
division, he can always stop it, and if he conceives 
that from any motive whatever there is an attempt 
to divide the Diocese so that there is no reasonable 
chance of giving a new Bishop a support, 
he can_ stop it. He has the whole thing before 
him. He imderstands the nature and v^ants 
of the case. If you remove that restriction, 
each Diocese with its Bishop can decide for itself 
when the time comes — a question which, in my judg- 
ment, has nothing whatever to do with the division 
of the Diocese — the amount which the new Bishop 
who is to be elected shall receive for his report. I 
vote, not only on my own part, but in discharging 
a duty which was laid upon me by the Diocese of 
Alabama three years ago, to refer this change, as I 
suppose this will have to be referred again, to the 
various Dioceses for their concurrence, to be acted on 
finally at the next Convention. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I had the honor to be 
in the Convention of 1868, when the clause now un- 
der consideration was adopted, and I took consider- 
able interest in it, and for the reason stated by the 
clerical member from Virginia, that in the change 
of the Constitution in reference to creating new Di- 
oceses, and allowing a small number to unite in 
forming a Diocese, it was very important that some 
check should be put upon those divisions, in order 
that a Bishop should not be created and be liable to 
be thrown destitute upon the world, to become a 
disgrace to the Church by the neglect to 
furnish him with his bread and his clothes. 
I was heartily in favor of making some reasonable 
provision, believing that the position of a Bishop 
differed materially from that of a Presbyter, that 
his resources were far more limited, that he couJd 
engage in no worldly pursuit without disgrace to his 
cloth; and I deemed it exceedingly important that 
some moderate, suitable provision should be made 
for him. The language of this clause allows vari- 
ous modes by which that provision shall be made, 
and it was well considered at that time. 
It does not involve the necessity of creating 
an endowment or a sum of money invested. It does 
not necessarily require that, and it is perfectly easy 
to escape all the dangers attending an endowment 
or investment in securities by a very simple process, 
which shall secure the support of the Bishop, and, 
at the same time, not requne the formation of a 
fund which will be liable to robbery or to loss. 

I will instance the Diocese of New Jersey, and the 
policy which is there pursued. The fund for the 
support of the Episcopate is formed in this way : 
the parishes pledge themselves that they will con- 
tribute so much per annum, or what is equivalent to 
a certain amount per annum. That is to say, if a 
parish pays its clergyman $1,500 salary, it gives a 
bond, bearing seven per cent, interest, for that 
amount to go into the Episcopal fund, and they may 
at their option pay the interest on that bond, and 
suffer it to run indefinitely. It is a solemn pledge 
on their part to an engagement that they 



309 



will pay seven per cent, per annum on that 

ainouut towards the support of the Episcopate. 
This bond is not liable to any loss or robbery, and 
it imposes no obiiga-tioii on the parish except that 
it shall pay the interest on that bond. On a fifteen 
hundred dollar bond it pays one hundred and fi^ve 
dollars a year towards the support of the Bishops. 
It is a very simple process, and has been a very effec- 
tive process. 

When the Diocese of New Jersey came before this 
body for a division, we showed to the Committee 
on the Admission of INew Dioceses, of which I was 
a member, that we had made a suitable provision 
in that way to a certain extent, and an additional 
provision m the way of assessments to another fur- 
ther extent, that we"^had effectually secured a pledge 
from the parishes of the new Diocese that the Bishop 
would not be thrown destitute upon the world and 
become a disgrace to the Church. 

I hope this clause will not be stricken out. 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I hope this House will not concur in the 
amendment sent down to us from the House of 
Bishops, and that with the understanding that the 
provision made in the Constitution, as it now 
stands, is not to be construed to require an endow- 
ment. 

Rev. Dr. STRUSTGEELLOW, of Alabama. AUow 
me to suggest this has not been sent down loy the 
House of Bishops ; it is only reported from our 
Committee on Constikitional Amendments. 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I hope it wiU 
not be concurred in, and that for the reason that I 
do not believe that the article, as it now stands, re- 
quires an endowment ; and the best evidence we 
have on that point is that we ha,ve already assented 
to the division of two Dioceses without any endow- 
ment. It seems to me that that is evidence euough of 
the construction placed on the present clause in re- 
ference to the securing the Bishop's support. If it 
required an endowment, I should object to it for 
two reasons. One is that it separates the 
Bishop too much from the people whom 
he is to serve ; and I thmk that in this day it 
is important that the Bishop should be brought in 
the closest relations to the people, just as it is impor- 
tant that the Presb^vter should be brought in close 
relations to the people. The Bishop should be to a 
large extent dependent on the Laity and Presbyters 
of the Diocese ; thus giving an assurance and a 
guarantee that he will serve them to the best of his 
ability, and by thus serving them, dwelling with 
them, and doing good to them, he will ensure the 
fact that he has really been sent. 

My friend, the Clerical Deputy from Alabama, 
spoke of his entering upon the diaconate, and then 
upon the priesthood, and. accepting parishes with- 
out any satisfactory assurances of suitable provi- 
sion. Why, sir, certainly he had some offer of sal- 
arv before he went to this parish or that parish. 

flev. Dr. STRINGFELLOW, of Alabama. I mere- 
ly said that I was ordained without any such assu- 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. The difference 
between a Deacon or Presbyter and a 
Bishop is this : If a Presbyter takes charge of 
a parish and finds that he is not supported 
there, he may resign at any time and 
go where he can be supported ; but when a Bishop 
is elected to a Diocese and consecrated therefor, he 
is fixed for hfe, and there he is required to remain, 
imless he sees fit to resign, which as understood now, 
according to the spirit prevailing in the 
Church, is not to be done. But there 
is suitable provision made for the 
support of the Bishop when there is an offer 
made on the part of the Diocese of such and su?h 
salary for him, and if he goes there^ and dwells 



there, and is doing good, there is no question of it 

that provision will always be made. Therefore I 
act, understanding the construction already placed 
on this article of the Constitution to be that 
this clause does not require an endowment. 
I also think it is important that satisfactory 
assurance shall be given for the support of the 
Bishop just as this article provides; but as the Cleri- 
cal Deputy from Virginia said, suppose we strike 
out this clause, then we open the door for the indefi- 
nite multiplication of Dioceses and for the indefinite 
multiplication of Bishops. All that is required, then, 
after the consent of tlie ah^eady existing Diocese and 
Bishop is obtained, is that six Presbyters and six 
Parishes exist in order that a Bishop may be elected 
and consecrated. 

For these reasons, I think we ought not to accept 
the amendment proposed by the Committee. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I wish 
to sav a word respecting the views that prevailed in 
the Committee on Constitutional xlmendments in 
support of this amendment. 

What seems most important for this Plouse to 
know is the meaning of the clause of the Constitu- 
tion which it is proposed to strike out. What it says 
is that this Convention shall not give its consent 
to the formation of a Diocese out of another 
Diocese or out of more than one Diocese, 
unless it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable pro- 
vision for the support of the Episcopate. The unan- 
imous opinion of the Committee on Constitutional 
Amendments, was that those words can only mean 
one thing, a provision which is good and valid and 
permanent according to a law of the State in which 
the Diocese exists. If it does not mean that, it is 
not a pro vision. It must be a provision, not for one 
year only but for the permanent support of the 
Bishop. If it does not mean this permanent sup- 
port, then it is not a provision for his support; 
it does not mean an3rthing of any importance, 
and it ought not to be in the Constitution. Every 
other means, except a fund or endowment, for tak- 
ing care of a Bishop must rest in some form or other 
on the basis of voluntary contribution ; and gentle- 
men rise on this floor and sa;' that v/ill do. Now, 
just what you want to do, is "to take out of the Con- 
stitution the clausp. which says that ^vill not do. 

I have stated the amendment. The Constitution 
declares that adequate provision must first be made 
for the support of the Bishop. We report to strike 
that out. I say that means a permanent provision; 
it means a legal provision, which can be enforced in 
the comets of law ; and it must mean a fund, the in- 
come of which wiU for aU time support a Bishop. 
If it does not mean that, it is insensible and has no 
place in the Constitution, and ought not to be there. 

We thought that was not according to the mis- 
sionary spirit of this Church. Endowment may, 
and no doubt will follow the establishment of the 
Diocese, but it camiot precede it except in those 
parts of the country where the Communion of this 
Church is already large and wealthy. This Church 
has grown up to its present size, how ? We have 
now forty-one Dioceses in these United States. Did 
the Episcopal fund precede the creation of these 
Dioceses and of these Bishops i I put the qtiestion 
to every member of this House, where would the 
American Church have been to-day if this had been 
the law of her growth ? She never would have 
grown to her present magTiitude and importance. 

This matter of supporting the Bishop is a ma,tter 
of civil contract between the parties ; and why 
should we interfere by rule of ecclesiastical organic 
law to prevent the parties from making such ar- 
rangements as they please about it ? Your proposed 
Bishop may be a man of wealth, and he may yet 
have in him the true missiona,ry spirit of this 
Church— wiUiug to go to the people which invites 



310 



him and carry the message there of his Divine Mas- 
ter. Why should we interfere by the Constitution, 
and say to hirn that lie shall not do it ? I 
do not wish to deny that there should be 
some checks upon the multiplication of Dioceses ; 
and you have these. There is the one sug2:ested by 
the learned Deputy from Virginia ; and if he thinks 
the check of sis Parishes and six clergymen is not 
snfficient, I will go with him to render that check 
somewhat more effective. There can be no objec- 
tion to that ; but it is one thing to check the growth 
of the Church by a Constitutional provision, which 
requires that you shall have an endowment before 
you have a church at all. I think that is eminently 
wrong in principle. 

Mr. MARTIN, of North Carolina. Mr. Presi- 
dent — 

Mr. RUaaLES, of New York. I rise to a ques- 
tion of privilege. This report is signed by seven 
members of the Committee, and was not signed by 
all. I will explain why I did not sign it. I admit 
that the Church cannot be extended with this pro- 
vision in the Constitution. The reason I could not 
sign the report was because it contained the follow- 
ing sentence — a provision which was adapted by 
wise men, pious men, having the good of the Church 
at heart : "It seems to us more careful of the dig- 
nity of the Episcopate than of the spread of the 
Church or the salvation of the souls of men." 

I could not sign a report containing that state- 
ment. 

Mr. MARTIN, of North Carolina. Mr. President, 
I agree entirely with the remarks that have been 
made by the Deputy from Central New York, and 
1 have only to add thereto a statement of the effect 
which this provision has had in the Diocese of North 
Carolina. The Diocese of North Caro- 
lina desired particularly to be divided, but 
on account of this provision, as they understood 
it — and they understood it as the Deputy from 
Central New York has explained — they could not 
do so under the Constitution ; and therefore they 
resorted to the mode of asking, first, for an Assist- 
ant Bishop, and then electing an Assistant Bishop, 
because there was no provision requiring any 
specific arrangement for 'his support. The assent 
was granted and an Assistant Bishop of North Car- 
olina was elected, and provision has been made for 
his support. The Diocese of North Carolina made 
special provision in its application, pledging it- 
self to a division so soon as it could comply 
with the requisites of the Constitution. We are 
therefore particularly interested that this amend- 
ment should pass. We desire to be divided. That 
has been the desire of North Carolina for years past. 
It is too large for one Diocese, apart from other 
considerations ; but we particularly desire a division, 
instead of an Assistant Bishop. The Diocese so 
pledged itself v/hen it asked to be divided, and at 
the last session of the Diocesan Convention there was 
a decided inclination to ask to be divided, under the 
impression that no requirement could be asked but 
the fulfilment of this provision when we had an As- 
sistant Bishop ; but it was thoaght best, as he had 
only been elected and consecrated within a few 
months, that the matter should be passed over until 
the next General Convention. For these reasons 
the Diocese of North Carolina desires that this 
amendment should prevail. 

Rev. Mr. GREGG, of Illinois. I have only a few 
words to say about this subject. In my judgment, 
this clause of Article 5 of the Constitution does 
mean endowment. Four years ago, the Convention 
of the Diocese of Illinois unanimously voted 
to divide the Diocese, with the consent of the 
Bishop, which was given. The Convention then 
appointed a committee to sit during the year, and 
that committee sat a number of times, and it was 



ascertained during the course of the year that the 

endowment could not be raised ; and so, at the next 
Convention, certain resolutions were adopted on 
the subject, proposing that we should make applica- 
tion at "the next G eneral Convention for permission 
to divide, upon the condition that during the follow- 
ing year, and before dividing a,nd erecting a new 
Diocese, we should raise some thirty thou- 
sand dollars. Our papers went into the House 
of Bishops, and the House of Bishops said "No; that 
clause in the Constitution means endowment." The 
papers laid before this House were then withdrawn. 
A few months ago before the death of our Bishop, 
the work was .undertaken again, and we undertook 
to raise an endowment, and we raised about seven- 
teen thousand dollars towards the endowment of 
the proposed Diocese in Southern Illinois, which is 
to contain a population of 1,200,000 people. When 
the death of the Bishop occurred our work 
in this dii'ection stopped, and when we met 
in Convention we decided that it v/ould not be 
worth while to come here with a proposed endow- 
ment of $17,000 in the form of parochial pledges. 
And so the subject was dropped. This clause of Ar- 
ticle 5 of the Constitution ^has stood in the way of 
the growth of the Church in the Diocese of Illinois 
for years, and I think that ovn- Diocese will vote 
unanimousl}^ in favor of adopting this report of the 
Committee. 

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. Failing in 
with the strain of remark of the gentleman last on 
the floor, I submit that according to the ruling of 
the Committee on the Admission of New Dioceses, 
the Article of the Constitution is calculated to mis- 
lead us, and, therefore, if rei^alned, it ought to be 
made more expressive, and I will try in a moment 
to substantiate my point by relating the experience 
of the Diocese which I am permitted to rep- 
resent on this floor. The Diocese of Michigan 
ha.s been divided during the past year. When the 
matter came before our Convention, it was in the 
mind of certain brethren who desired to set off the 
new Diocese that they might make some annual 
provision, as was proposed to be made in the Diocese 
of IlUnois, The Journal of the General Convention 
was opened, and the gentlemen were pointed to the 
action of the General Convention in reference to 
that application. They saw at once that they 
could not carry out any such plan; and 
though they were a little discouraged, they 
went out of the Convention to try to raise 
a fund, and most happily they succeeded, and when 
they came here at the opening of this Convention 
with their application, they brought the evidence 
with them that they had secured a bona fide endow- 
ment of $35,000. "Now, it seems they acted under 
a misconception. I am very glad to know that that 
misconception existed, and 1 think it is an igno- 
rance for which they will be very glad before 
the close of their diocesan life. But I think 
that case serves to show that the article of 
the Constitution as it stands is not sufficiently 
explicit. Let us know what this means. If it is 
sufficiently simple to promise the support of the 
Episcopate, then let it be so expressed. But if, on 
the other hand, it is meant that an endowment of 
some sort shall be secured, let that be expressed. 
The ruling of the Committee on the Admission of 
New Dioceses is not that any endowment is neces- 
sary, but simply that the new Diocese shall come, 
not before this Convention, as I understand, but be- 
fore that Committee, and state their ability to sup- 
port the Episcopate, 

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. Mr. President, 
I think there is force in the argument that has been 
urged both for and against the striking out of this 
clause ; and while as at present advised I cannot 
agree to the report of the Committee, yet it does 



311 



seem to me that with a little change we may meet 
the objections and obviate the difficulty. I am op- 
posed to leaving the Constitution as it stands with 
this clause stricken out, unless we can make a httle 
change in another clause which follows immediately 
after ; for I do believe, as has been said, that it will 
lead to the multiplication of Dioceses, without that 
restraint which we ought to have. My suggestion — 
and I offer the amendment — would be this, that in 
the second line, after the clause recommended by 
the Committee to be stricken out, we strike out the 
word "six," and substitute the word "twelve " 
therefor, the word "six" occurring twice in con- 
nection with "parishes " and with "Presbyters." 

Now, while the clause recommended by the Com- 
mittee to be stricken out does operate, beyond any 
question, as has been said, to the increase of the 
Episcopate, I am unwiUing, for one, to allow a new 
Diocese to be made with only six parishes in it, and 
I do not believe it would tend to the interests of the 
Church to make so radical a change as that which 
would be made by merely striking out the clause re- 
commended by the Committee. I understand the dis- 
tinguished gentleman from Central New York (Mr. 
Comstock) to say that he would be willing, for one, 
to allow some more restriction than would exist if 
this clause were stricken out. He did not indicate 
this precise one ; but it does seem to me that if we 
have that restriction it will be sufficient for 
our purpose ; and it will take away the great 
objection, which strikes me with much force, 
that this assurance of an endowment must be ob- 
tained before the new Diocese can be formed. I 
think that is asking too much. I do not think we 
ought to have this restriction, and it seems to me that 
if we can agree to the other it will be a sufficient 
guard and protection against the improper increase 

of DioCGSGS. 

Rev. Mr.HANCKEL, of Virginia. I second the 
amendment of the gentieinan from Minnesota. ^ 

THE HYMNAL. 

A message (No. 65) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced that that House had appointed as the Com- 
mittee of Conference, in relation to the matter of 
the Hymnal, asked for in Message No. 55, of the 
House of Deputies, the Bishop of East on, the 
Bishop of Vermont, and the Bishop of Massachu- 
setts. 

CANON ON RITUAL. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I wish now to 
make a motion, with the consent of the House, in 
relation to a matter that ought to be attended to 
immediately. The Committee on Canons had re- 
ferred to them a message (No. 63) from the House of 
Bishops proposing amendments to our Canon on 
Ritual, which was nearly unanimously passed by 
this House. The Committee on Canons have had a 
meeting on the subject, and have instructed me to 
present this resolution to the House : 

"Resolved, That this House do not concur with 
the amendments proposed by the House of Bishops 
to the proposed second section of Canon 20 of Title 
I., and ask for a Committee of Conference." 

I offer that resolution, with the permission of the 
House, for immediate action. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Ought there not 
to be an explanation by the Committee on Canons 
before we express an opinion? 

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. It is simply for 
this reason. If we^raise the question here now and dis- 
cuss it, we shall have no Canon whatever. The only 
way to get a Canon at all is to act speedily, and not 
to have a discussion now on what these alterations 
amount to. It is important for the Committee to 
meet the House of Bishops, and see whether there is 
any opportunity of coming to any conclusion, unani- 
mously or otherwise. TV hen it is reported back, 



then all these amendments can be discussed, if th6 
House think proper to discuss them. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I should like to 
hear the amendments which the Bishops propose 
once more read, in order fully to understand ex- 
actly their purport. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. The message 
is in the hands of the Committee on Canons, and 
i until this question is settled I hold that the House 
have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the Com- 
mittee on Canons for the nonce. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland, I move, as a sub- 
stitute, tliat we concur in the amendments of the 
House of Bishops. 

Rev, Dr. HALL, of Long Island. If this discus- 
sion goes on, I shall have to insist on proceeding 
with the regular business. 
Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I am quite sure 
! this House does not know what is included in the 
j message of the House of Bishops, according to the 
opinion of several members of the Committee on 
I Canons. The motion to concur should not be car- 
i ried without very great dehberation. If the motion 

is withdrawn, I have nothing more to say. 
! Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. It is not with- 
di-awn unless I hear what the Committee recom- 
mend. 

Mr. KING-, of Long Island. I move to lay the 
motion of the Deputy from Maryland on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the 
resolution of Dr. Mead non-concurring, and asking 
I for a Committee of Conference. 
{ Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. It seems 
to me quite unreasonable that the request of the 
Clerical Deputy from Maryland should be refused 
in this manner. ("Order!" "Order!") Why 
should we not know what is proposed ? 

The PRESIDENT. The Committee of Confer- 
ence will bring the whole matter before us. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. That is 
perfectly true ; but we can hardly tell how to vote 
on this question until we know what we are voting 
upon. 

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. The message has 
been read already. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. Nobody understood 
the effect of it, however. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. If the amend- 
ment be not read, I shall have to call for the yeas 
and navs. 

The PRESIDENT. The message is here now and 
will be read. 

The SECRETARY read the message No. 63 from 
the House of Bishops. 

The PRESIDENT. The House has heard the 
message. 

The SECRETARY. I can read the Canon as 
amended, if you wish. [" Read ! read !"] The Canon, 
if amended as proposed by the House of Bishops, 
will read: 

"Sec. 2. [1] If any Bishop have reason to believe, 
or if complaint be made to him in writing by two 
or more of his Presbyters that ceremonies or prac- 
tices during the celebration of the Holy Communion, 
which set forth or sj^mbolize erroneous or doubtful 
doctrines, or ceremonies or practices not ordained 
or authorized in the Book of Common Prayer, have 
been introduced into a parish within his jurisdiction, 
it shall be the duty of such Bishop to summon the 
Standing Committee as his Coimcil of Advice, and 
with them to investigate the matter. 

" [3.] If, after investigation, it shall appear to the 
Bishop and the Standing Committee that erroneous 
or doubtful doctrines have in fact been set forth or 
symbolized, or that ceremonies or practices not or- 
dained or authorized as aforesaid have been intro- 
duced, it shall be the duty of the Bishop, by instru. 



312 



ment of writing under his hand, to admonish the 

minister of the jparish to discontinue such practices 
or ceremonies ; and if the minister shall disregard 
such admonition, it shall be the duty of the Stand- 
ing Committee to cause him to be tried for a breach 
of his ordination vow. Provided that nothing herein 
contained shall prevent the presentment, trial, and 

gunishment of any minister under the provisions of 
ection 1, of Canon 2, Title II., of the Digest, 
"[3] In all investigations under the provisions of 
this Canon, the minister whose acts or practices are 
the subject-matter of the investigation shall be noti- 
fied, and have opportunity to be heard in his de- 
fence. The charges preferred, and the findings of 
the Bishop and Standing Committee, shall be in 
writing, and a record shall be kept of the proceed- 
ings in the case. " 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the mo- 
tion of Dr. Mead to nonconcur and ask for a confer- 
ence. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The Committee of Confer- 
ence will be the Committee on Canons of this House. 

BISHOPS OF NEW DIOCESES. 

The PRESIDENT. The proposed amendment to 
the Fifth Article of the Constitution is now before 
the House. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Mr. President and 
gentlemen, you will remember that when, six years 
ago, after the portrayal of the wants of the ex- 
treme West, and the great necessity there 
for Episcopal supervision and the division of 
Dioceses, the General Convention determined 
with one voice that this Church was a 
Missionary Church, and would put itself into 
such harness as that it could do missionary work. 
Under the old article, fifteen self-supporting parish- 
es were necessary in a new Diocese to be formed. 
Under the new they were reduced to six. This 
constitutional! change, running thi-ough three years, 
was made with especial reference to the work of the 
Church in the new portions of its territory and in 
the broadly extended portions of its old and scat- 
tered territory ; and yet I would like that you 
should take notice of this fact. Although it was 
the unanimous opinion of the Church that something 
must be done by which the Church could go to her 
work eif ectively, and that that something was the 
division of Dioceses into smaller and more effective 
working bodies ; still there was added a provision to 
the Constitution that utterly annihilated and did 
away with the good intention of the Chm^ch. I tell 
you to-daj^ that the Church is worse off under the 
present Constitution as it stands, than it was under 
the old. Apply this test to the old divisions as they 
took place, and I say there was not one in ten 
that could have provided or that did so provide 
as that they could have divided according 
to the letter or spirit of this constitutional enact- 
ment. Our old Dioceses exist, almost all 
of them, and went into operation under 
the old Constitution, that was found to be too se- 
vere, too onerous, too cramping the Church, too 
confining in its work, that eliminated from it all its 
missionary character ; and yet nearly every one of 
those Dioceses went into its effective work under 
better circumstances than the present article al- 
lows. How many of them where there were fifteen 
parishes that were self-supporting ? And, even if 
there were such, were thev prepared to raise 
$30,000 or $40,000 as a fund for the support of the 
Episcopate ? The Church, in the old days, 
allowed those parishes to judge for them- 
selves. What was then allowed to a Diocese ? 
Remembering that it had a Bishop first to be satis- 
fied ; that itself had two sections first to be satis- 
fled— the old Diocese to be contracted, the new one 



to be set off— remembering that the Bishop-elect 

was to be satisfied also, the Church allowed these 
three parties to judge for themselves, so far as the 
initiation was concerned ; and then remember they 
came here. This House must be perfectly satisfied 
that the work is good ; it must be sat- 
isfied that they can do better work as 
two Dioceses than as one ; that the dignity of 
the Episcopate is safe; that the Missionary 
character of the Diocese requires that it be divided : 
and after we have become satisfied, it goes up to the 
House of Bishops, and there is the last and ultimate 
appeal of any enemy of that division. Under the 
old condition of the Constitution, there were five 
parties, as there are now, to this setting off or di- 
vision of the Diocese. 

Now, can we not trust the General Church ? Can 
we not trust the House of Bishops to take care of 
the dignity of its own members ? Can 
we not trust this Convention to take 
care of the interests of the General Church 
committed to its care ? Can we not trust the old 
Diocese to decide for itself whether it is better that 
its limits should be contracted ? Can we not trust 
the new Diocese, in conjunction with all these other 
authorities, to say whether it will do its work alone, 
or in communion with the old Diocese ? And then, 
after a-Il, and better than all, can we not trust the 
godly man who has given his life in tv/o orders, 
first through the diaconate, and then as a Pres- 
byter, v/ho has given his life without ever ask- 
ing a single question of whether he was to 
have staff, scrip, or purse, whether he was to be 
s ipported by $100 or $1,000 or $5,000— can we not 
trust that man, after lie has travelled for a time in 
the path, learned the great burdens that rest upon 
him as a Presbyter in the Church, learned the great 
interests committed to his hands as a Presbyter in 
this Church — Can we not trust him to go under the 
moving of the Holy Ghost, and to accept the Epis- 
copate if called, or not to accept, as to 
him seems good ? Ai-e we to say to him, 
"When the Diocese has called you, when 
the General Convention has allowed you to 
accept, it is undignified for you to step into 
the shoes of St. Paul, and travel over your territory 
regardless of whether you are paid by the day or 
by the year, or not paid at all !" There are men 
who are ready to take any work that the Church 
lays upon them, whether it be high or low; 
whether it brings them a thousand a year or their 
dailj'- bread ; whether they travel in chariots or 
whether they walk on foot ; whether they go in pur- 
ple, or whether they go in homespun ; and they are 
the men who are needed for Bishops in this Church, 
and especiallj^ for Bishops in this growing country, 
where homespun is the rule and chariots are not 
known. 

Now it comes to this, shall we go back, as a broth- 
er just said, to the twelve parishes, rather than the 
six ? Shall we continue to compel men to have a 
fund put above them before they can accept the 
work of God laid upon them, whether they desire 
it or not ? More than this, shall we take from the 
Church its missionary character, for that is the 
whole of it ? If we are a Church confined to the cities, 
if we are a Church confined to the rich, if we are a 
Church confined to the East, then you may weU 
enough have this provision, because the cities, the rich 
and the East can provide for all that this Constitution 
requires. But there is an opening West and South- 
west, and I take here broad issue with the gentle- 
man who says we are in danger of disgracing the 
Church and multiplying Dioceses interminably. 
They are to be multiplied interminably. Before 
some men in this House die, this country will have 
100,000,000, perhaps 200,000,000 of people, and 
these Dioceses are to go on, if the Church 



31^ 



does its work, multiplying interminably. If I did 
not believe it, I would see no reason why I should 
be a minister of the Chm-ch in the Great West; I 
would come back here where money is to be made, 
and purple and fine linen are to be worn, and take 
my share. But I believe that my duty is there for 
the present. I beheve that God's army is marching 
with the star of empire, and that it will only march 
as it goes oflBcered by the Episcopate and carrying 
the banner in hands that are authorized to carry it, 
holding it aloft pure and glowing. 

Say to me that the Episcopate will fall into 
wrong hands ! I hope it will always fall into the 
hands that will never stop to enquii-e for an hour or 
a day whether there be that provision provided for 
in this article yea or nay. I hope too that you will 
remember, gentlemen, that there are many men 
so situated in these new countries that they 
are called by God's Providence into the exact 
position for Bishops. Now and then grows up one 
great parish which is well paid ; it has a church big 
enough for a cathedral; and grouped around it is a 
region of country that may have two, three, five, 
or seven parishes and not one of them self-support- 
ing ; and yet this one great parish has the man, the 
very man exactly fitted for the oversight and charge 
of that region. They say to this country "Divide; 
we will support your Bishop; we will 
give the Church what it requires, and 
we will put into his pulpit an assistant beside 
him, and it will cost nobody a dollar " ; and yet 
gentlemen come here prepared to say, " Oh, no; the 
dignity of the Episcopate requires that you should 
have a fund above him ; and though he is supported 
by his parish, it is not dignified." I tell you, St. 
Paul asked but Uttle of dignity. He asked that the 
work of God should travel through all lands, and 
when he went even to the Western Isles, I do not 
believe he paused to think whether people considered 
it dignified yea or nay. For six years past, if anx- 
iety and toil and trouble could be coined into time 
and money, I should have spent money enough and 
time enough to have built a ship to circumnavigate 
the globe in simply trying to circumnavigate this one 
provision of our Constitution, and you have been 
troubled, Committee after Committee — 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time is up. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. A comparison has 
been drawn between a Missionary Bishop and the 
Bishop of a Diocese, and it has been stated that we 
have made no provision whatever for a Missionary 
Bishop. I insist that that is not so ; for when we 
elect a Missionary Bishop, we pledge this whole 
Church to his support solemnly. 

Another point made by the Lay Deputy from Cen- 
tral New York is, that no lawful provision can be 
made without money invested in stocks — 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I did 
not say that. I said there must be some legal ade- 
quate provision, the income of which will support 
the Bishop. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I merely wish to 
submit to him whether a bond given by a parish in 
New Jersey, which is a corporate body, and bearing 
seven per cent, interest annually on the principal, 
and the bond payable at an indefinite time in the 
future, is not such a legal obligation as would con- 
stitute a proper endowment ! 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. To 
whom given ? 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. To the Trustees of 
the Episcopal Fund. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. The gentleman 
from New Jersey takes the ground that my argu- 
ment does not apply to a Missionary Bishop. I be- 
lieve that the proper way to do this work is to lay 
off the outlying portions of the Diocese into a new 
Diocese, 



I Rev, Dr. HALL, of Long Island. This is immense- 
I ly interesting ; but there are twelve other reports, 
I I think, of the Committee on Constitutional Amend- 
ments, about twenty from the Committee on Can- 
ons, besides this Ritual matter which comes back on 
us, and we have only till Wednesday night next at 
i midnight at the farthest. I do not think the Com- 
; mittee has any particular objection to an amend- 
I ment putting in "twelve" instead of "six," as the 
j number of Presbyters in a new Diocese. [No, no.] 
j Well, let us try it as it is. I hope the debate will 
! cease and the voting begin. 

I Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. I do hope the 
f resolution as reported by the Committee will be put 
I to the House, to either adopt or reject it, 
j Mr, KING, of Long Island, There are such grave 
I objections connected with the separation of Dioceses 
I where there are only six parishes and six Presbyters 
I left, so far as the old States, at least, are concerned, 
I that it is utterly impossible for me to vote for the 
I resolution of the Committee, I hope the amend- 
ment suggested by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will prevail first, 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I wish to enquire 
of the gentleman from Minnesota if he would accept 
an amendment, fixing the numbers at "ten" in- 
stead of " twelve " as he proposed ? 

Mr, ATWATER, of Minnesota, I will substitute 
"ten " for " twelve " in my amendment. 

The PRESIDENT, It is moved to amend the res- 
olution by inserting a modification of the article by 
changing the number " six " to "ten " where " six " 
is the term now used, 

Mr, BLAIR, of Maryland, I hardly think it fair 
for gentlemen to come here with the advocacy of a 
proposition, based on the report of a committee, to 
take nearly the whole time, and then insist upon 
the question being taken. I have no objection, 
however, if they will take the question in the form 
now proposed. 

The PRESIDENT, The question is on the amend- 
ment of the gentleman from Minnesota. 

The CHAIR put the question, and declared that 
the nays prevailed by the voices, 
A division was called for. 

Rev, Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The Diocese 
of Alabama calls for a vote by orders. 

Mr, STEVENSON, of Kentucky, What has he- 
come of the order of the day ? The rule of the 
House is that it shall be taken up at twelve o'clock 
unless it is dispensed with. 

The PRESIDENT. We have been on the order 
of the day for an hour or two. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. But the order 
of the day was the appointment of the Rubrical 
Commission. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is mistaken. 

Mr, SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I think it is very 
well for us to understand this matter. The report of 
the Committee on Constitutional Amendments is a 
simple thing to strike out the words in the Constitu- 
tion, "and such consent shall not be given by the 
General Convention until it has satisfactory assur- 
ances of a suitable provision for the support of the 
Episcopate in the contemplated new Diocese. " The 
second resolution is simply to send down this pro- 
posal to the Dioceses. Now, I do not know how any 
amendment to that proposition can come in by 
striking out " six " and inserting " ten " anywhere. 
If you propose to amend the next clause of the Con- 
stitution, there ought to be a distinct proposition to 
I that effect. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York, Allow 
me to ask the gentleman if there is any difficulty in 
amending the first resolution in the report by add- 
ing to it these words, "Also by st rikin g out the 
work ' six ' wherever it occm-s in said article and in- 



114 



serting the word 'ten'"? It will all then be one 
proposition, 

Mr. SHEFFEY,of Vii'ginia. I understand you can 
send down a distinct proposition, and it ought to be 
distinct and plain, for when it comes back we cannot 
cross a £ or dot an i; we must pass it in totidem ver- 
bis. It goes down to the Dioceses, and comes back 
for our ratification or approval at the next session 
of the General Convention. 

Mr. President, I desire— but I do so with some 
diffidence in view of the report that has been made by 
a committee so eminent as that on Constitutional 
Amendments in this House — to say a single word on 
the general subject. An evil was felt to exist in 
this Church arising from the imminent danger of 
too many subdivisions of Dioceses. That feeling in 
the Church resulted in the proposal in 1868 to the 
entire body of the Church to amend the Constitu- 
tion so as to pi-ovide for the clause now 
sought to be stricken out. That amendment — 

Rev. Dr. STRINGFELLOW, of Alabama. I rise 
to a point of order, and I do it with a good deal of 
hesitation, with reference to the distinguished Depu- 
ty from Virginia. I understand the vote has been 
taken, and a call for a vote by Dioceses and Orders 
has also been sent to the Chair. The point of order 
is whether it is now allowed to debate a question on 
which the House has already taken a vote. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. If the vote has 
been taken — [" Yes, yes. "] I understand the question 
was put on striking out "six" and inserting 
" twelve." That is not a vote on the main proposi- 
tion, to send out any amendment to the Dioceses. 

Rev. Dr. FULTOJST, of Alabama. But a call has 
been made that that vote be further determined by 
Dioceses and orders. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. That can be de- 
manded at any time, a day or a week before the 
vote is taken, but it does not cut off debate. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I beg pardon ; 
but can we go on debating other questions when 
the vote has been taken upon this, and a call for a 
division by Dioceses and orders has been made on 
this question ? 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I understand— 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I ask the Chair. 

The PRESIDENT. I will state that the question 
has been debated very thoroughly upon the report 
and resolutions of the Committee. Just as the vote 
was about to be taken upon that question, and I must 
say it was a surprise to "me as a member of the House 
as well a,s a surprise to me as an officer of the House, 
a motion was made in reference to another clause 
of the article, changing entirely the question. 
I should like that question to have been fully consid- 
ered for many days before the change was made ; 
nevertheless I put the question as it was proposed 
to the Chair and to the House, and I also announced 
that the result of the vote was that the amendment 
was lost. Then a division was called for, and the 
Chair is ready to put the question upon that division. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I submitted the 
question of order that there was no proposition to 
which such an amendment appertained. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. And 
then proceeded to debate the general question. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I had a right to do 
so. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. The amendment, as 
I understood, was to make the report palatable to 
the Convention. A majority were willing to vote 
for the report of the Committee, provided they un- 
derstood that this restraint was to follow. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I want an an- 
swer from the Secretary to this question : When 
was the matter brought into this House and referred 
to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitu- 



tion, on which we are now acting, as covered by 
their report ? 

The SECRETARY. The report was made on the 
fifteenth day of the session. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Had this other 
matter, in regard to the increase of the number of 
Presbyters and parishes to constitute a new Diocese, 
been brought up before the sixteenth day ? 

The PRESIDENT. No, sir. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Then it is new 
matter, and we have nothing to do with it. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise for a 
point of information. Did the Chair rule that the 
motion to increase the number of Presbyters from 
six to ten was lost ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Then I with- 
draw the point of order, and we withdraw the call 
also for a vote by Dioceses and orders. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I ask again for a 
division on that matter. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. The decision of 
the Chair was annoimced, and we acquiesced in it. 

The PRESIDENT. A division was caUed for at 
the time. 

Rev. Dr. STRINGFELLOW, of Alabama. I hope 
I may be allowed to say a word to the House as to 
what we are about to do. If we are not to vote on 
the increase of the number of Presbyters and 
p3<risiiGS 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I beheve the learn- 
ed Deputy called me to order. I was entitled to 
the floor unless I was out of order. 

Rev. Dr. STRINGFELLOW, of Alabama. If the 
gentleman will allow me, when I called him to 
order, I was not aware that the President had de- 
cided in reference to the vote previously taken, but 
supposed that was pending. I ask the Chair, is the 
question now on the original resolution of the Com- 
mittee on Constitutional Amendments ? 

The PRESIDENT. I shall decide with some dif- 
fidence, because my own inclination helps, perhaps, 
to lead me to the decision, that the point made by 
Dr. Mead is a good one, and that the attempt to 
increase the number of the parishes as a condition 
for the formation of the new Dioceses is new mat- 
ter, and cannot be introduced, therefore the amend- 
ment is out of order. The question is on the reso- 
lution reported by the Committee on Amendments 
to the Constitution. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. Does the 
President decide that we cannot amend the proposi- 
tion of the Committee ? 

The PRESIDENT. Not by introducing a matter 
so entirely near as to increase the qualifications. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. That is the 
very point. I appeal the House that this amend- 
ment which we have proposed to us may be amended 
by adding to it a change in another paragraph of 
the same article or section of the Constitution. I 
proDose to appeal to the House on that point. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from South 
Carolina appeals from the decision of the Chair, de- 
termining that a proposition to make a change in 
the number of parishes is new matter. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. If the 
appeal is debatable, I desire to say one word. Both 
propositions relate to the same matter. The Com- 
mittee propose to strike out one of the checks in the 
Constitution, and the amendment simply proposes 
to make another check in the same article a little 
more effectual. I think the Chair has erred in the 
point of order 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. I move to lay 
the appeal on the table. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I move that 
the decision of the Chair be sustained. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. Laying the ap- 



315 



peal on the table sustains the decision of the 
Chair. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
rose before that motion was made. The gentleman 
from Tennessee made his motion to lay on the table 
before he was recognized. I have seen gentlemen 
try all day to get the floor, and I rose before the mo- 
tion to lay on the table was made, and the gentle- 
man made the motion before he was recognized by 
the Chair. It is for that reason we have ten people 
talking at once. 

I merely wish to suggest on the point of order, 
that this decision of the Chair is only important in 
reference to our business which is to be rapidly done 
for the few days remaining. When a check is pro- 
posed to be taken out of the Constitution and an- 
other check on exactly the same matter is to be 
made stronger, as a reason for taking that out, it 
will never do to hold that that is new matter, be- 
cause we shall never be able to do any business in 
that way. The original proposition is to take off one 
check on the creation of new Dioceses, and this 
House is asked by the amendment to say, " We will 
take out that check if you will make the other check 
a little stronger. " 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I rise to a point of 
order. I believe in all parliamentary bodies on 
earth when an appeal is taken from the decision of 
the Chair, without the shghtest debate, the ques- 
tion is put, shall the decision be sustained ? 

The PRESIDENT. No ; that is a mistake. The 
appeal may be debated ad libitum. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. I wish to know 
whether I was recognized when I made a motion to 
lay the appeal on the table, which leaves the de- 
cision of the Chair standing as he has made it ? 

The PRESIDENT. I had recognized you, but 
the gentleman from Western New York objected to 
the recognition as informal. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. I make the mo- 
tion now to lay the appeal on the table. 

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. I submit that it is 
not a parliamentary motion to lay an appeal on the 
table. 

The PRESIDENT. It is a common occurrence 
here. The question is on the motion to lay the ap- 
peal on the table. 

The motion was not agreed to, there being, on a 
division, ayes, 63, noes, 92. 

The PRESIDENT. It is not necessary, I suppose, 
to take the vote on sustaining the decision of the 
Chair, as I consider this vote practically a reversal 
of it. 

Mr. RACE, 'of Louisiana. Oh, no ! This does 
not decide that question. I voted on other reasons. 
I thought it unparliamentary to lay an appeal on 
the table. 

The PRESIDENT. Very well. Then the ques- 
tion will be. Shall the decision of the Chair stand as 
the judgment of the House ? 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I know that the time 
of this House is precious, but an important princi- 
ple is here involved— the right of this House to 
control its Committees. I understand that the Com- 
mittee on Constitutional Amendments had referred 
to them one subject. What was that sub- 
ject ? The question of the Episcopate and the 
proper provision for the support of the Episco- 
pate. And are six parishes a proper sup- 
port ? That is the point of the amendment. 
It is true one section of the Constitution 
provides that you must make suitable provision, 
and the next section provides that a new Diocese to 
be formed must have at least six parishes. The 
Committee on Constitutional Amendments bring in 
a report on this great subject. What is that report ? 
That a new Diocese may be formed without making 
suitable provision for a Bishop. Gentlemen say, we 



I are willing to vote for that, provided twelve parishes 
or ten parishes are required in the new Diocese ; 
t and when that amendment is moved a gentleman 
rises here and says that we have no right 
to propose the amendment ! How does it stand ? 
The amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
Minnesota was to add to the resolution an addi- 
tional proposition. Has not the House a right to 
make a proposition to amend the resolution of this 
Constitutional Committee ? Unless the gentleman 
from Minnesota is right, that conclusion 
must be reached, that we can adopt no proposition 
in this House without reference to a 
committee. The amendment appertains to the 
same subject as the original resolution. It may 
not be in parliamentary form, perhaps, but the pro- 
per way would be to add to the reporb of the Com- 
mittee an additional section. If that* had been 
adopted, two propositions would be presented to 
; the House, one a proposition to strike out the sait- 
j able provision, and the other a proposition to in- 
i crease the number of Presbyters to ten or twelve, 
j as the case may be, and then the two would form 
! one complete whole. 

j Now, it is proposed to take from the House its 
! most im'portant privilege — that of controlling its 
I own business. I hope the House will vote under- 
standingly. We now vote on a distinct proposition 
which is not reported by the Committee, to wit : 
that there shall be an additiona,l amendment to the 
Constitution to strike out "six" and insert "ten" 
or "twelve." When that is done, the question will 
come up upon the two propositions together. 

Rev, Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I ask for the 
reading of the record. 

The SECRETARY. "The Committee on Con- 
stitutional Amendments, to whom was referred the 
memorial from the Diocese of Tennessee, asking 
for an amendment of Article 5 of the Constitution 
by omitting the words, ' and such consent shall not 
be given by the General Convention,' " etc. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. There was but one 
thing submitted to the Committee. 

Rev. Mr. GRAY, of Tennessee. I desire to say a 
few words on the question. Am I in order ? 

The PRESIDENT. No, sir ; we are on the appeal 
now. 

Rev. Mr. GRAY, of Tennessee. Then let me hear 
what is the exact question before the House. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is whether the 
decision of the Chair shall be sustained, ruling that 
this proposition to change the Constitution by the 
substitution of "ten "parishes for "six "is new 
matter, and cannot, therefore, be introduced to- 
day. , 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. May I say 
only a f evv^ words ? 

The PRESIDENT. If the House will allow you, 
I am certainly willing. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I hope that this 
House will sustain the President's decision, in order 
that we may come to a full sense of the clergy and 
laity of this House in regard to this matter, whether 
the Church in the West and Southwest shall be 
choked olf by red-tape. [Laughter.] 

The PRESIDENT. The question is, ShaU the de- 
cision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the 
House ? 

The question being put, there were on the division, 
ayes 74, noes 91. 

The PRESIDENT. The decision of the Chair is 
not sustained. 

BOARD OP MISSIONS. 

A message (No. 66) from the House of Bishops 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolution: 

"Resolved, That this House do not concur in the 



316 



resolution contained in Message No. 53 from the i 
House of Deputies, relating to conditional action of ' 
the Board of Missions, for the reason that this House 
does not consider itself competent to commit to the 
Board of Missions such conditional powers." 

THE HYMNAL. 

A message (No. 67) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

" Resolved, That the House of Bishops concurs in 
Message No. 48 from the House of Clerical and Lay- 
Deputies, with the following amendment, viz. : To 
substitute for the last of the resolutions in said mes- 
sage the following : 

"'Resolved, That the revised Hymnal now set 
forth is not to be regarded as a finality, and conse- 
quently it may be revised whenever deemed de- 
sirable ; but that, in the judgment of this General 
Convention, it should not be further revised until it 
shall have been subjected to the test of actual use 
for the period of six years.' " 

The SECRETARY. That is the report of the 
J oint Committee of Conference, I will state. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that we 
concur in the Joint Committee's report on the 
Hymnal. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I will say 
that the Committee were unanimous, and every 
member of the Joint Committee has signed the re- 
port which I have in my hand. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. If the Secretary 
will read it, I think we are prepared to act. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

"The Joint Committee of Conference on the Hym- 
nal recommend concurrence in the Message No. 48, 
of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, with the 
following amendment, viz. : to substitute for the 
second of the joint resolutions proposed in said mes- 
sage the following : 

" 'Resolved, That the Revised Hymnal now set 
forth is not to be regarded as a finality, and conse- 
quently it may be revised whenever deemed desir- 
able; but that in the judgment of this General Con- 
vention it should not be further revised until it shall 
have been subjected to the test of actual use for the 
period of six years.' " 

The resolution was concurred in. 

CANON ON RITUAL. 

A message (No. 68) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced that it had appointed as the Committee of 
Conference asked for in Message No. 50 from the 
House of Deputies (relating to the proposed amend- 
ment to Section 2, Canon 20, Title I.), the Bishops of 
Connecticut, North Carolina, New York, Pennsyl- 
vania, and Ohio, being its Committee on Canons. 

CONCURRENCE IN VARIOUS MATTERS. 

A message (No. 69) from the House of Bishops in- 
formed the House of Deputies that it concurs 
in Message No. 56 from the House of Deputies (dis- 
charging Joint Committee on Republishing Jour- 
nals), and also concurs in Message No. 57 (proposing 
an amendment to the Constitution of the Domestic 
and Foreign Missionary Society), and in No. 58 
(reappointing Committee of Laymen on Indian 
Affairs). 

BISHOPS OP NEW DIOCESES. 

The PRESIDENT. The report of the Committee 
on Constitutional Amendments is before the House. 

Rev. Mr. GRAY, of Tennessee, obtained the floor. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Will the gentle- 
man allow me a moment ? I desire, after the deci- 
sion of the House differing from the decision made 
by the Chair just now, to ask who was the gentle- 
man that proposed to strike out "six" and insert 
"ten" or ''^twelve" ? 



I Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. I moved it. 
I Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I ask that Mr. 
At water 's proposition, by way of amendment, should 
stand in these words : 

" That there be added to the proposition the fol- 
lowing language : 

"No such new Diocese shall be foi-med which shall 
contain less than ten oarishes " . 
Several DEPUTIES. Say twelve. 
Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. The proposition is 
that of the gentleman from Minnesota, and I am 
only reducing it to form. 

Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. I un- 
derstand the proposition was made by Judge Com- 
stock originally, and contained the vv^ord "twelve." 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. It is wholly imma- 
terial so far as I am concerned ; I merely wish to 
get the question properly before the House. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. Is it 
not simply this, strike out the word "six " where it 
occurs in two places and insert "twelve"? That 
was the form, and I proposed it as an addition to the 
resolution of the Committee. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. But the better 
form, with all due respect, is that which I suggest, 
because " six " or " ten " may occur somewhere else. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I have 
looked it over. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. We should vote 
on it distinctly as an addition to the proposed reso- 
lution of the Committee. I understand that the 
question now is upon the amendment to strike out 
" six," so as to make that clause of the Constitution 
read: 

"No such new Diocese shall be formed which 
shall contain less than twelve self-supporting pa.r- 
ishes or less than twelve Presbyters who have been 
at least one year canonically resident within the 
bounds of such new Diocese, regularly settled in a 
parish or congregation, and qualified to vote for a 
Bishop." 

I Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise to a point 
of order. That amendment to the proposal of the 
Committee has a,lready been put to the House, voted 
upon, and declared by the Chair to be lost. 
The PRESIDENT. But a division was caUed for. 
Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. If a division is 
called for, the Diocese of Alabama calls for a vote by 
Dioceses and Orders. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I was merely de 
siring, on a caU for a vote by Dioceses, to have the 
question intelligibly before the House. I did not 
propose to debate tha,t question at this time. I only 
desired the question to be put in proper form to the 
House, so that we could understand it. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I submit 
that the question which was put was on " ten " and 
not " twelve," and it was declared that " ten " was 
not passed, and it is upon the point of "ten" that 
the division is to be made now, and not on the point 
of "twelve, "as put before us by the distinguished 
Deputy from Virginia. 

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. There is a mis- 
understanding, evidently, here. I beg leave to say 
that I introduced the amendment. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. If 
you are going to have a vote by orders on " ten," 
we may have a vote by orders next on " eleven " 
or "twelve," or any other number, and we shall 
never get through. Let us first determine whether 
we want to change that part of the article at all. I 
suggest that the usual parliamentary rule is to move 
to strike out " six " and substitute blank. One man 
may name " twelve " and another "ten," and after 
taking the vote by orders, as to any change, let us 
settle by a majority on the number. Otherwise, we 
shall never get through. After the vote is taken by 
orders on "ten," I can rise and move to insert 



317 



"eleven," and then have another vote by orders, I 
and then I can rise and move " twelve," and have a ' 
vote by ordei-s, when the House should determine 
fii'st, whether it wants any change at all. 

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. The precise pro- 
position, as presented by Judge Sheffej^, is on my 
resolution to insert "ten," and in regard to the 
suggestion of the last gentleman on the floor, I have 
to say that I think this House will be reasonably 
satisfied with either "ten" or "twelve." The word, 
in my origmal resolution, was "twelve," but on the 
request of several gentlemen about me I substituted 
"ten," and that is my resolution at the Clerk's desk, 
and that is the one which will come be- 
fore the House. I think the suggestion 
that other gentlemen here, in case that is carried, 
will change it one or tw-o either wa,y, is not well 
taken, for if the substitution of the proposition is 
acceptable, I think we shall not quan-el about either 
"ten" or "twelve." The vote^then will be this : 
That we adopt the report of this Committee, strilc- 
ing out the words which they desire, but adding 
thereto a change in the second line after the words 
asked to be stricken out by the Committee, by 
changing " six" to " ten," so as to read : 

" No such new Diocese shall be formed which shall 
contain less than ten parishes or less than ten Pres- 
byters," instead of " six " in each case. 

Rev. Mr. GRAY, of Tennessee. I wish to say a 
word. Have I the right to speak on the proposed 
amendment i 

The PRESIDENT. I think so. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I rise to 
a question of order. Has anybody a right to speak 
when we are simply determining whether this ques- 
tion has been lost or not ^ I do not think any one 
has a right to speak now. 

The PRESIDENT. The question was so uidefi- 
nitely put before that I think it becomes the discre- 
tion of this House to allow the matter to be con- 
sidered till it is definitely put. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. With 
that imderstanding, I am willing that the gentleman 
shall proceed. 

Rev. Mr. GRAY, of Teimessee. I ask the atten- 
tion of the House to this question for a few moments. 
I do think this is a matter of very great import- 
ance for the consideration of this body. Are we 
going with these quibbles over parliamentary 
usage and points on rules of order to do, as the dis- 
tinguished Deputy from Wisconsin (Dr. Adams) 
said, choke this Church and not allow it to grow { 
She wants to grow. She is endeavoring to spread 
out her arms and strengthen herself, if we only let 
her grow. Now, if we are in.f avor of the amendment 
which is offered, the choking process will be much 
greater than if we let the article remain as it is. 
I know the need we have in our large Dioceses, 
where the Bishops spend so much time in travelling ; 
I know the need of circumscribing the geographical 
limits of those Dioceses, in order that they may 
visit them more thoroughly. To give an example, 
I hve in West Tennessee ; there are about 
twenty counties in that portion of the State. Out 
of those twenty there are at least twelve in which 
no Minister of this Church ever lifts his voice. We 
believe that it is our right to extend the 
Church. We believe that it is our duty to go 
out and preach the Gospel in the highways and 
byways, and yet here are people who never hear 
the voice of the Church. Shall they hear it ? 
Can we Presbyters, confined to the small area of 
parishes, go out and occupy these large fields which 1 
are unoccupied, and in which the voice of the min- ^ 
ister of the Church is never heard ? We all know we 
cannot. Who is to be the chief missionary if not 
the Bishop ? If you put him in a Diocese that is 
over four hundred miles long, it is all that he can 



do to visit the parishes and missionary stations 
thnt are already formed ; and how then is 
tJr's ground to be occupied ? But if the 
geographical limits are made less, then the Bishop 
might take these twenty counties, and reviewing 
the ground, see what the openings are, and prepare 
to establish work in the various counties. But now 
it is necessary that he should wait till, by some 
means or other, you can get ten or twelve parishes 
already estabhshed in these large territorial dis- 
tricts, and thus the growth of the Chvirch is put 
off. 

How was it in the time of the Apos- 
tles ? St. Paul could say, although he 
had to go much of the distance on 
foot, "from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyr- 
icum, Iha.ve fully preached the Gospel of Christ," 
yet we can point to whole districts which are of 
smaller dimensions than the one spoken of by St. 
Paul, in which this Chm-ch does not raise her voice, 
and in which I venture to say, if the provisions.here 
proposed are insisted upon, she will not, for years to 
come, be able to raise her voice. 

President and brethren of this Convention, do let 
us give the Church a chance to grow. Do let us be- 
lieve that a Bishop is not necessarily compelled to 
have more of a salary than a Presbyter. He can live 
on as little as a Presbyter can. He is as willing to 
endure hardships, and' go out to the front. He is the 
only one that can go, and go freely, throughout the 
length and breadth of the district. The parochial 
clergy are necessarily more or less confined to their 
various parochia,! organizations. 

I do hope that none of these restrictions will be 
kept in this article of the Constitution. If there is 
any restriction that is allowable at all, it is that of 
territorial limit, and not the number of parishes 
and of ministers that may be in the district. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President, 
it strikes me that if we thoroughly understood each 
other, we might come to a vote without very long 
or very serious debate. I therefore shall speak but 
a very words, merely to express what we mean who 
desire no change in the present number. At the 
East, and in the North, it is an easy matter 
to divide Dioceses as the Constitution now stands, 
and so obtain at any moment increased Episcopal 
service and supervision : but take for example the 
Western Diocese of Kentuclcy. Will you there find 
seven self-supporting parishes all through it ? I 
doubt it. Take the Diocese of Alabama in the 
South. Have we there seven thoroughly self - sup- 
porting parishes all through ? If we have I will tell 
you how we have them. We have them because we 
iiave men doing something like this ; living on 
$150 a year and borrowing that. 

Sir, I mean business in this matter. Alabama is 
an organized Diocese. Alabama cannot di^.dde now 
imder the provision that you have, and yet it is my 
opinion, and it is the opinion of my beloved Bishop, 
that nothmg in the world would so help the cause 
of the Church as an increase of the leadership 
of the Episcopate. But, sir, go farther South 
and go farther West. What is the prin- 
ciple of this Church which it has solemnly 
adopted ? It is that the Episcopate shall go forward 
with the flag, and that the Episcopate, bearing all 
things, enduring all things, hoping all things, shall 
carry on that flag with the rallying cry, " Come 
on ! "—not with the pusillanimous cry, "I have 
$4,000 or $5,000 a year ; now, you go on with 
nothing !" 

I do trust that our brethren of the North and our 
brethren of the East will not do what my beloved 
brother from Wisconsin has said : choke the Church 
West and East with red-tape. You have put it 
down now to six parishes and six Presbyters. That 
is enough to give the Bishop his little corporal's 



318 



guard to go on with ; but do not make it any harder, 
unless you want to stop the march of the Church. 
Do not make it any more severe. And, as to this 
money consideration, although I will not speak of it 
now, I would only say, do not let the weight of a 
dollar tell in the scales of the Church. 

I said I should be brief, because I trust it will not 
be a matter of very much more debate. I am will- 
ing to come to a vote at once on the question of an 
increa,se of the number beyond six, and decidedly 
to vote "no" upon that proposition, and I ask my 
brethren of the North and of the East not to vote 
against us. You are easy ; we are pressed. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I will venture 
to suggest, in order that members of the House 
may vote intelligently, that this General Conven- 
tion by legislation already has made provision on 
this matter by allowing missionary jurisdictions to 
be cut oif from Dioceses which are too large, and 
that a missionary jurisdiction can be created which 
does not contain a sufficient number of clergymen, 
or a number sufficiently trvistworthy and discreet 
to be allov/ed to elect their own Bishop. 
I have no doubt that is one reason 
for the reluctance of opening the door for an in- 
crease of the Episcopate in this way. There has 
been, on the part of the Bishops especially, a reluc- 
tance that it should be confided to so small a num- 
ber as six clergymen, most of whom may be young 
men, to be charged with the weighty duty of elect- 
ing a Bishop. Is it not best that during the early 
years and infancy of the work that part of the 
country should exist as a Missionary jurisdiction 
rather than that a f (^w young men, or a few lay- 
men, uneducated in the Church, should be charged 
with so weighty a matter ? 

May it not be wise, then, to leave the matter as it 
stands, admitting the amendment offered by my 
lay colleague I That is to say, is it imperatively ne- 
cessary that this division of the coimtry shall 
have Episcopal supervision ? Application can be 
made to the Convention, and it can be set oS into a 
missionary jurisdiction until such time as it attains 
the number of ten clergymen and ten parishes. Surely 
if there is any prospect of growth in that region, it 
will not take more than one or two years before it 
reaches that point, and then perhaps we may think, 
and not till then, that we are willing to ti-ust so small 
a number to do such an important act as to elect a 
Bishop. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I am very glad 
that the reverend brother who preceded me sus- 
tained the point that he put, but 1 want to call his 
special attention to the fact that we have an amend- 
ment of the Constitution on its passage providing 
for missionary jurisdictions, and whenever a Dio- 
cese is too large for the proper administration of it 
by the Bishop, there will be this provision for a 
missionary jurisdiction. That seems to me to 
answer very largely the wants that have been so 
feehngly urged. 

Now I want to offer one argument that I think 
will appeal to us all. I am perfectly con vinced my- 
self that this amendment to the Constitution can 
only pass the House of Bishops by going almost 
unanimously through this Body, and that the Bish- 
ops will not accept it without this provision for 
ten Presbyters and ten parishes. The Fathers of 
the Church have felt very strongly upon this 
point against any diminution of the restraints, 
upon the division of Dioceses, and that feeling, of 
course, was very largely the feeling of the House of 
Bishops in altering the Constitution and taking out 
of it the fifteen Presbyters and parishes. This was 
put in as a kind of compromise, and the expression 
then of the House of Bishops was very decided. I 
think it will be repeated now ; and if this amend- 
ment of the Constitution be not carried in this 



I House unanimously, the House of Bishops 
will non-concur. Therefore we are wasting 
Lime, in my judgment. I may be a false prophet, 
however, in that matter. Let us agree on the 
1 amendment, and I think we had better have it "ten" 
I Presbyters and churches in order to obtain the con- 
j sent of the House of Bishops. In the meantime, we 
; can, under the other provision of the Constitution, 
1 meet the wants of the Church until such time as the 
I Diocese shall have ten self-supporting parishes and 
j Presb^i^ers. 

j I think, myself, that there is a feeling with some 

i of us that may be a little bit enthusiastic in the 
matter. It comes to my mind that there are two 
constitutions in the Church, one of them given to 
us by the mother, our Holy Church, and the other 
by our bleesed Lord, and that the two ought to be 

I made somehow or other to agree. I do not think 
that the article of the Constitution in question would 
read now exactly in harmony with the original 
constitution as given by the Apostle St. Matthew. 
It seems to me, when our Lord said, ' ' Co ye into 
all the world, and preach the Gospel to every crea- 
ture, " it does not sound exactly right to say. Go, 

I provided there be a sufficient provision to support 
you ! If we come to a Tittle more hannony, we may 
induce the House of Bishops to accept this change, 
but I am convinced we must give them the oppor- 
timity of a graceful acceptance by putting in 
" ten." I wish the question might be taken, and that 
we could come to an end of this debate. 

Rev. Dr. BEERS, of Albany. I wish to ask the 
mover of the amendment a question. Will he agree 
to accept an amendment to his amendment naming 
" eight " ? 

Mr. ATWATER, of Minnesota. No, sir. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend- 
ment of Mr. Atwaterto strike out " six" and substi- 
tute "ten," and that vote is to be taken by a vote by 
Dioceses and orders, I understand. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I withdraw, 
on the part of the Diocese of Alabama, the caU for 
a vote by orders. 

The PRESIDENT. The call is withdrawn, and 
the question is on the amendment. 

Tlie Chair put the question on the amendment, 
and declared that the ayes appeared to prevail. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I must insist 
that, on a proposed amendment to an article of the 
Constitution, the vote shall be taken by Dioceses 
and orders. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. We do not have 
to take the vote by Dioceses and orders at every 
point. After all the amendments are in, then we 
j take the vote in that way on the whole proposition. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. We can then 
accept or reject the whole. Now, sir, if I may be 
permitted — 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. The President 
announced the vote. I rise to a point of order, 
whether a gentleman can raise a question after the 
vote has been taken. 

The PRESIDENT. The vote was takesn and the 
amendment was carried by apparently a large major- 
ity. Dr. Mead has a matter to present. 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. By permission 
of the House, I wish to caU attention to one fact, 
that in 1835 we had no constitutional provision fix- 
; ing the number. In 1835 the first Canon passed was 
j a Canon " Of the Election of Bishops," which I will 
read: 

" Sec. 1. Any Diocese in union with this Church, 
having, at the time, less than six officiating Presby- 
ters residing therein, regularly settled in a parish or 
church, and qualified to vote for a Bishop, and any 
Diocese, at the tixne of its organization, with a view 
to ask for admission into union with this Church, 
may, by a vote of the Convention thereof "— 



Mind, you have "less than six," 
— " request the General Convention to elect a Bi- 
shop for the same ; and thereupon the House of 
Bishops may nominate to the House of Clerical and 
Lay Deputies, for their concurrence, a suitable per- 
son for the oflSce of Bishop ; who shall, in case of 
their concurrence, be consecrated as the Bishop of 
such Diocese," etc. 

Now, mark the actual number there. 

"Sec. 2. In the recess of the General Con- 
vention, the Church in any such Diocese 
may, by a vote of the convention thereof, 
request the election of a Bishop for such 
Diocese by the Bishops of the Church ; 
and when such request shall be made known to the 
Presiding Bishop, who shall commimicate informa- 
tion of the same to the other Bishops, a ma jority of 
the Bishops may select a suitable person for such 
Bishop ; and if a majority of the Standing- Com- 
mittees of the churches in the different Dioceses shall 
cons-^nt to the consecration of the person so select- 
ed, the Presiding Bishop, with any two Bishops, or 
any three Bishops, to whom he may communicate 
the testimonials, may proceed to the consecration." 

Now, gentlemen, let me tell you that there was 
action in 1836 under this Canon, and but for that ac- 
tion and this Canon, at that time, a Diocese in the 
West, which is now a glory in the land, the Diocese 
of Michigan, could not have had a Bishop. She had 
less than six clergymen. The Convention of the 
Diocese urged the Bishops under this Canon to give 
them a Bishop, and Bishop White went to work and 
endeavored ftrst to get the Bishops together, and 
when he could not do that he collected the suf- 
frages by letter and elected the present Bishop of 
Michigan. You see at that period of the Church it 
was all-important. That Diocese is now here asking 
for a division. What would have been the condi- 
tion of Michigan if it had not been for this liberal- 
ity ? I say with my brother from Wisconsin — do 
not, I entreat you, with red-tape choke the progress 
of the Church. Let well enough alone. It was in- 
troduced as a constitutional* provision after this 
action by Canon in 1835, and put in by the Church 
at that time that there should be six Presbyters and 
six churches. Let it stand there. 

The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon 
the report of the Committee as it has been amended 
on motion of Mr. Atwater, striking out " six " and 
substituting "ten" in the following paragraph of 
this article of the Constitution. 

The Chair put the question on the resolutions as 
amended, and declared that the ayes prevailed. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I understand 
that this goes up to the House of Bishops. I would 
wish, therefore, that the House of Bishops should 
know by what majority we have passed it, and 
how great our feeling is, and how complete our 
consent is in reference to this matter. I therefore call 
for a division, that the ayes and noes on this ques- 
tion may be understood by the House of Bishops. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I desire to say that 
there has been a notable misapprehension in the 
rear of this House of what has been going on im- 
mediately around the Chair. It was announced by 
the reverend gentleman from Connecticut that a 
vote by orders would have to be taken upon this 
question, and under that impression the call for a 
vote by orders was not made formally, as would 
have been done by Dioceses on this flooi-. I really 
do think that on a matter of so much impoi'tance 
the House should be permitted to express its de- 
hberate sentiment. I move, therefore, if it is ne- 
cessary, to reconsider the vote by which this amend- 
ment was agreed to, it having been put without 
anybody knowing in our portion of the House what 
was going on, and we were counted as voting for it, 
although we might have been in sentiment against 



it. I submit whether, on so grave and important ft 
matter, we ought not at least to have the opportu- 
nity of being able to understand the question that is 
put to the House ? 

The PRESIDENT. I will read Article 9 of the 
Constitution, and it can be determined by the 
House, or i-ather custom will determine, whether 
the vote must be taken by Dioceses and orders. I 
think it has been usual to do so. Article 9 says : 

" This Constitution shall be unalterable, unless in 
General Convention, by the Church, in a majority 
of the Dioceses which may have adopted the same ; 
and all alterations shall be first proposed in one 
General Convention, and made known to the several 
Diocesan Conventions, before they shall be finally 
agreed to, or ratified, in the ensuing General Con- 
vention." 

My own idea is that the requisition of a majority 
of the Dioceses refers both to the proposal and to 
the final ratification. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I 
would state that the Rev. Dr. Hawks, in his consid- 
eration of this very article, lays down four propo- 
sitions, and, I think, proves them. The first is, that 
in aU questions of constitutional or litm^gical changes 
the vote must be by Dioceses and orders. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has decided to 
that effect, and the vote will be taken in that way. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I conceive that 
there is a doubt about this matter. The final vote 
of the next Convention must be by orders, but it 
has not been the custom heretofore to have the vote 
on the mere proposition by orders. I refer to the 
J oumal of 1871, page 201. I do not think it is neces- 
sary to take the vote by orders, unless it is called 
for. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I call for the read- 
ing of the proposition as it now stands. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the fifth article of the Constitution be amend- 
ed by striking out the following words : ' And such 
consent shall not be given by the General Conven- 
tion until it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable 
provision for the support of the Episcopate in the 
contemplated new Diocese,' and that the word 
' six ' be stricken out in the second line after the 
words proposed to be stricken out by the Committee, 
wherever it occurs, and the word ' ten ' substituted 
in place thereof. 

"Resolved, That such amendment be ratified 
and notified to the several Diocesan Conventions in 
accordance with the ninth article of the Constitu- 
tion, so that the same may be agreed to or ratified 
by the next General Convention." 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will caU the 
roll. 

The roll was called, with the following result: 

Clerical Vote. — Dioceses voting, 41 : ayes 33, 
noes 5, divided 3. 

Lay Vote. — Dioceses voting, 35 : ayes 31, noes 3. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution as amended, 
proposing to amend Article 5 of the Constitution, is 
adopted. 

HISTORY OP THE CHURCH. 

A message (No. 70) from the House of Bishops, 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That the matter of preparing an account of the 
design, history, and Constitution of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States, in compli- 
ance with a request of the Executive Committee of 
the Centennial Commission for an International 
Exhibition in Philadelphia in 1876, to be deposited 
in one of the departments of the Exhibition, be re- 
ferred to the Rev. Wm. Stevens Perry, d.d.. His 



320 



toriographer of the Church, with the request that 
he prepare such an account as is desired by the 
Executive Committee of the Centennial Commis- 
sion. " 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I move that 
the Rouse concur in that resolution. 
The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The time has arrived for the 
recess, and the House accordingly talces a recess un- 
til two o'clock. 

TRUSTEES OF RELIEF FUND. 

A Message (No. 71) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced that that House had appointed as members 
of the Joint Committee to nominate Trustees of the 
Fund for the Relief of the Widows and Orphans of 
Deceased Clergymen and of Aged and Infirm Clergy- 
men, in accordance with the requirement of the act 
incorporating said Trustees, the Bishops of New 
York, of Long Island, and of Maine. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. I move that 
we concur in that action of the House of Bishops. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair appoints the Com- 
mittee on the part of this House, Rev. Dr. Shelton, 
of Western New York, Mr. Livingston, of New 
York, and Mr, Meigs, of New Jersey. 

FRENCH PRAYER-BOOK. 

Mr. RUGGLSS, of New York, submitted the 
following resolution, which was agreed to : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That Mr. Edward R. Perkins, of Massachusetts, be 
added to the Joint Committee on the translation of 
the French Prayer-Book ; and that said Jomt Com- 
mittee be continued until the next session of the 
General Convention. 

CHURCHES ABROAD. 

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia, from the 
Committee on Canons, submitted the following- 
report : 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
Message No. 36 from the House of Bishops, propos- 
ing certain amendments to Canon 5, Title III., ' Of 
Congregations and Parishes,' respectfully report 
that they have considered the same, and recommend 
that the House of Deputies concur therein, as ex- 
pressed in the following resolution: 

■"Resolved, That this House concur with the 
House of Bishops in the substitution of two new 
clauses for Clause [11] of Section 3, of Canon 5, of 
Title III., I elating to the organization of churches in 
Foreign lands, and proposed to this House in Mes- 
sage No. 36." 

The resolution was agreed to. 

CHURCH MUSIC. 

Rev. Dr. BENEDICT, of Georgia, from the Com- 
mittee on Canons, submitted the following report : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was re- 
ferred Message No, 23 from the House of Bishops, 
proposing the adoption of a Canon ' Of Church 
Music,' respectfully report that they have consid- 
ered the same, and recommend the concurrence of 
the House of Deputies therein, with amendments, 
as expressed in the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That this House concur with the 
House of Bishops in the adoption of the Canon trans- 
mitted to this House in Message No. 23, and entitled 
'Of Church Music,' with the following amendments: 

"1st. To prefix an additional clause, as follows : 

" (1.) The selection of the psalms in metre and the 
hymns which are set forth by authority, are allowed 
to be sung in aU congregations of this Church before 
and after Morning and Evening Services, and also 
before and after sermons, at the discretion of the 
minister, whose duty it shall be by standing direc- 



tion, or from time to time, to appoint such authoi'- 
ized psalms and hymns as are to be sung. 

" 2d. To amend the Canon proposed by the House 
of Bishops, so that it may read as follows : 

" (2.) ^^nd further, it shall also be the duty of 
every minister of this Church, with such assistance 
as he may see fit to employ from persons skilled in 
music, to give order concerning the tunes to be 
sung at any time in his church, and especially it shall 
be his duty to suppress all such music and all such 
conduct in its performance as are inconsistent with 
the design and purpose of pubhc worship. 

" Resolved, That this House concur with the 
House of Bishops in their resolution relating to the 
printing of the Canon * Of Church Music. ' " 

The resolutions were adopted. 

HOUSE OF DEPUTIES, 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I ask to take 
from the table that which comes next in order, the 
report made on the eleventh day by the Committee 
on Amendments to the Constitution, as found on 
page 75 of The Daily Churchman, on the resolu- 
tions of Dr. Burr reducing representation in this 
House, The resolution at the end is that the Com- 
mittee be discharged, or something to that effect. 

The Secretary read the report as follows : 

" The Committee on Amendments to the Consti- 
tution, to whom was referred the resolution of the 
Rev. Dr. Burr, of Ohio, as to the expediency of pro- 
posing an amendment to the Constitution reducing 
the number of Clerical and Lay Deputies from each 
Diocese, and the resolution of the Rev. Dr. Beards- 
ley, of Connecticut, as to the expediency of rear- 
ranging the same on a new basis of representation, 
respectfully report that such amendments, in their 
opinion, would be inexpedient at the present time, 
and ask to be discharged from the further considera- 
tion of the subject." 

Rev. Dr. BURR, of Ohio. I was induced to offer 
the resolution which gave rise to this report, for a 
reason which must be very obvious to every mem- 
ber of this House, I am very sorry that the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution 
have not regarded it in the same Hght 
as I think a large number of the mem- 
bers of the Convention do. This House 
has been growing with the nijmber of 
dioceses, until it has become too large 
to do the business of the Church with promptness 
and with safety, in my humble judgment. I think 
I have seen during this session the evils resulting 
from having so large a number as at present consti- 
tutes this House of the Convention. I have been a 
member of the Convention for a good many years. 
The time was when the business of this Convention 
was despatched with rapidity, at least as much rapid- 
ity as was consistent with the safety of the business of 
the Church ; and I think it must be obvious to every 
man in this House that this body is too large, and 
that the business has been accumulating in about the 
same proportion that the dioceses of the Church 
have increased. 

Now, look foi-ward to the fact that this amend- 
ment to the Constitution cannot be availed of be- 
fore six years ; that it must go to each Diocese and 
receive sanction there, and after it shall be sanc- 
tioned by the Dioceses, the next General Convention 
will have to act upon it, and that we shall have 
not only the number of Dioceses we have 
now, but ten or twelve added in the mean 
time. At any rate, look forward six years, 
until which time the amendment I pro- 
pose cannot go into operation, and what will be the 
condition of things with twenty-five more Dioceses? 
This body would then, wi^i the present number of 
Deputies from each Diocese, be composed of about 
600 members ? Does any one suppose that the busi- 



321 



iiess of the Church could be conducted with any- 
thing like speed or facility with that number of 
members in our House ? It must be evident to 
every member of this House that we have too many 
now for business pm-poses. 

Again, what is the necessity that each Diocese 
should be represented by eight Deputies, four cleri- 
cal and f om- lay i My proposition, perhaps, was not 
expressed most felicitously, but I proposed to reduce 
the number one-half. But suppose there were six 
from each Diocese, three of each order ; I would be 
perfectly willing to agree to that. I hope that the 
report of the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution will not be concurred in. It 
must seem clear to the mind of every 
member, I think, that expediency requires 
a change. I know of no principle whatever 
that stands in the way. The Constitution 
does not admit of more than four of each order 
from each Diocese; it does not say how many under 
that number shall be sent, but it was supposed that 
it was necessary that the Constitution should be 
amended before the measure proposed could go into 
effect. Therefore my resolution went to the Com- 
mittee on Amendments to the Constitution. I 
would be glad if this report were recommitted to 
the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, 
with instructions to report in accordance with the 
view I have presented. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I may say, in 
view of my record in this body, that it would be 
very inconsistent on my part if I were to acquiesce 
in the passage of the report just presented. I was 
in the minority in the Committee on Constitutional 
Amendments. All the rest of the members, 
I believe, without exception, differed from 
myself on this question. I still maintain 
and assert the opinion which I have asserted 
in this body at three successive Conventions before, 
that our members ought to be reduced at once, and 
that there is no possibility of relieving this House of 
the pressure upon it, without an immediate reduc- 
tion as soon as it can be made. I 
say it ought to be reduced not to four members 
from each Diocese, but to six. Eight 
from each Diocese now makes three hundred and 
twenty. We are bringing in six new Dioceses, which 
will add f ortj^-eight more seats to be provided for 
at the next session ; and before this amendment can 
take effect, we shall have nearly one hundred new 
seats to provide for, and the crowd wiU come upon 
us so fast that I think we are bound to take the mat- 
ter in time, and now apply the remedy. 

That was my proposition, and I urged it before 
the Committee, but in vain. They held to the con- 
trary that it was valuable to have a large Conven- 
tion where great bodies of our feUow-countrymen 
might come together once in three years, and the 
larger the Convention the better for purposes of 
fraternity and union. I was voted down all hoUow, 
as I was before ; but I still maintain that the only 
possible mode in which the plethora of this body 
can be relieved is by blood-letting. Lop off two out 
of every eight, and with that we can get along pos- 
sibly for twenty-five years, and then we shall have 
to take off two more, and so gradually until the 
Dioceses will send but one clergyman and one of 
the laity apiece ; and when the last extremity comes 
in the future we may be obliged to divide the 
House into two bodies, one clerical and one lay, in 
order to relieve the pressure. I cannot tell what 
the enormous increase of our Dioceses may bring 
upon us ; but this will relieve us for one generation 
to come. I therefore entii'ely approve of the 
motion of my friend from Ohio to recommit with 
instructions. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I beg leave to 
move an amendment to the Constitution on this 



point, I am looking forward to the ultimate Gene- 
ral Council of this Church in which the representa- 
tion shall be one Bishop, one clergyman, and one 
layman from each Diocese composing this House, 
and I say also that at this present time it is perfect- 
ly manifest that we have too many. Still at the 
' same time, as a measure of justice, I think we should 
; be progressive. I think that instead of cutting off the 
I members at once to what will be the future numbers, 
; we should distinctly take off twenty-five per cent. 
I I know the West, and I tell the clergy and 
I laity of this House that in six years we shaU have 
I between ten and twenty new Dioceses, and then 
I our House of Convention, instead of being a delib- 
! erative body, will be simply a mere mob — a mob, to 
I be sure, of gentlemen and Christians, but not the less 
j tumultuous, and not the less excitable, and not the 
less unmanageable in doing the business which we 
come here to do. I therefore, instead of the reso- 
lution which the highly respectable Committee on 
Amendments to the Constitution have introduced, 
move this amendment : 

" That in the second article of the Constitution in 
the fourth line the word ' three ' be substituted 
for ' four ' in the two places where it occurs. " 

I think, having made that motion, you cannot ac- 
cuse me of verbosity or too much talking. [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maiyland. I think it is too late 
in the session to discuss this question. I move to 
lay the amendment on the table. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Would the gen- 
tleman be willing to let it go over to the next Con- 
vention ? 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. Laying it on the table 
will take it over. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to lay the amendment on the table. 

The motion was not agreed to, there being on a 
division, ayes, 60; noes, 91. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I should 
like to move as a test-question to strike out " four " 
and insert " two." 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I move to recom- 
mit the report, with instructions to report that the 
representation of each Diocese be three of each 
order. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President 

1 and gentlemen of the Convention : I wish to explain 
the reason why I voted against laying this measm'e 
on the table. It was because I think there is a view 
of the matter which has not yet been perhaps sufll- 
ciently considei"ed by this Convention. Many of us 
came to this Convention with the earnest hope, 
with the strong desire, that some wise plan might be 
laid before this body for the creation of a provincial 
system in this Church which would meet with the 
necessities of the day as we stand in a countiy like 
this of such vast extent, where there are such differ- 
ences of opinion, of sentiment, and of situation in all 
I respects. In that, for many causes for which no one 
j is responsible, we have been disappointed. I should 
1 be sorry that, while this General Convention re- 
j mains the only Provincial Synod of this Church, the 
I number of its members should be decreased. I think 
j if we should now cut down the number of a Dio- 
cese's Deputies from four to three of each order, a 
few General Conventions hence that precedent 
would be followed, and then we should have two 
of each order, and at length one of each order, un- 
til this would be brought into the position of an 
oligarchical institution, attempting to perform 
I fimctions over the length and breadth of the 
I United States, and wherever our Foreign Mis- 
sions extend, to which really nobody in the 
world ever was or will be competent. I 
trust that this movement may not prevail, 
for the simple reason that I think it would be the 



322 



s urest way in the world to prevent the possibility 
of our having a provincial system established. 
"When the provincial system is estab- 
lished, as necessity demands, I think, al- 
ready, and as I think our experience is beginning 
to prove to be necessary, then let the greater 
body which meets at any intervals at all 
that may then seem to be wisest be a smaller body; 
let it be more representative of the highest intellect 
chosen from the chosen, if you will ; but in the 
mean time let us not cut away the representation of 
this Church in svich a fashion or in such a manner 
as to prevent the best possible distribution of the 
Church into provinces. 

I hope that the measure may not prevail ; not be- 
cause I am opposed to it, but because I think it 
will prevent another thing that is more immedi- 
ately and more pressingly necessary, and which 
would be put practically out of sight by this mea- 
sure. There is no time in the history of the world, 
there never was a time, when any such contineni: 
as this was represented in one Provincial Sjoiod. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I rise to a ques- 
tion of order. We have a report lying on the table 
on the provincial system, and it ought not to be 
discussed at the present time. Let that be discussed 
on its merits. We shall show that no provincial 
system is necessary when that report comes up, 
and that it would strike at the best interests of this 
Church. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. My friend 
says there is a report now on the table of this House 
in which it is set forth to this Convention that no 
provincial system is necessary ; that it would strike 
at the best interests of this Church. I am sorry to 
hear that such a report is on our table ; I am 
amazed to hear that such a report is on this table ; 
and I trust that when that discussion comes up it may 
be considered in connection with this matter. If we 
are never to have a provincial system, then let us, 
by all means, reduce the number of this House, and 
if we are to have a provincial system, let us not re- 
duce its number at present. 

I am not going to make any more of a speech. I 
have done. I trust this matter will be postponed 
until the report on the provincial system comes up. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I second the 
motion to have them both considered together. I 
want them discussed at the same time. 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I think it must be 
evident to this whole House that the body itself is im- 
wieldy, it is too large to work well. It is not a place 
for wise and calm deliberation. Some two or three 
hundred members in this House have been forced to 
absolute silence, and I might say to absolute deaf- 
ness in this House. They have neither spoken, nor 
have they heard what was spoken, the House 
has been so tumultuous and so disorderly from 
about the first day of this session imtil this mo- 
ment. I do not think it is a place for work. 
I do not think the number of three hundred 
and twenty members here now promote 
wise deliberation. In six years more we 
shall probably have six hundred members. 
1 think myself that two delegates of each Order 
from each Diocese are sufficient. I would prefer that 
number ; but I am willing to yield to the suggestion of 
the wise old Presbyter from Ohio to reduce it grad- 
ually, as it seems to be approved by the reverend 
representative from Wisconsin, and by the learned i 
lawyer from New York, that a fair reduction is from 
four to three of each Order. I do not think this j 
question ought to be complicated at all with the j 
question of provincial Synods or provincial any- I 
thing ; but I would say for myself that if I thought 
the reduction from eight to six in this House would 
tend to defeat the provincial system, I would sus- 
tain it still more strongly than I do now. 



Mr. LAMBERTON, of Central Pennsylvania. 
Mr. President, there is one thought that is well 
worthy of consideration in connection with the 
proposition now before the House ; and that is that 
by the reduction of the number from four to three, 
if aU the Deputies vote, we can have no divided vote 
of a Diocese, so that when two of a delegation, 
either clerical or lay, cast their vote, it cannot be 
nullified by the single remaining Deputy. The 
amendment accomplishes this, besides the reduc- 
tion of the large number that will necessarily con- 
stitute the House by the increase of the number of 
Dioceses 

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut, Mr. President, 
I wish to caU the attention of the House to the fact 
that we have now forty-one Dioceses, and the next 
General Convention three yea,rs hence will embrace 
forty-five. Multiplying forty-five by eight will give 
us three hundred and sixty members, as we shall 
certainly be then. I do think that one of the most 
important measures of this Convention will 
be to start on its progress an amendment 
to the Constitution to reduce the number from 
each Diocese represented in this House. I am in 
favor of two ; for I do not think there is any great 
force in the argument of the gentleman who last 
spoke, that because there are three the vote cannot 
be divided. I hope the votes may never be divided. 
I wish each Diocese to vote distinctly ; but if there 
be three, two of course will be a majority. 

I tell you, gentlemen, it is highly important that 
you set the thing in motion at this Convention ; and al- 
though I had hoped and wished that we might ad- 
journ to-night, lam ready to stay another week or two 
if we can get this. If you delay the initiative of it in 
this Convention, you will leave us at the end of six 
years with four or five hmidred, probably five hun- 
dred Deputies in this House, and the diflSculty 
will increase with each recurring Conven- 
tion. As we increase the number our 
difficulties multiply, for it must be 
said that clergyman and layman, even ecclesiasti- 
cally, are not free from petty ambition— the ambi- 
tion to attend a General Convention, I hope, how- 
ever, that that ambition may be laid so far from 
them that they will all remember that the interests 
of the Church are to be the first thing in the jdew of 
every Churchman, and those interests decidedly call 
for a reduction of the number Who are authorized 
now to attend this House. If you do not begin 
the work now, you cannot acconiphsh it under six 
years. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. Mr. Presi- 
dent, as one of the Committee who made this report, 
I believe the time may come When you will have a 
reduction ; but when you begin to reduce this 
House, I conceive that you begin to destroy this 
Convention, and you begin to destroy this Church. 
Gentlemen may not see it in the fight I do ; but if 
you now reduce this House to two laymen and two 
clergymen from each Diocese, the very reason on 
which this is proposed will carry to one layman 
and one clergyman, and your House of Bishops, 
constituting a separate House, will be double the 
number it now is. You can concentrate more wis- 
dom in four hundred men than in two hundred. 
Although you may have more folly, still you have 
more wisdom. ' 

Gentlemen say we are tumultuous. What has 
made us tumu.ltuous ? I say we have been tumul- 
tuous because we cannot hear. It is the place in 
which you have been assembled which has operated 
to cause tumult ; nothing else. Men cannot 
attend when, by ail their exertions, they cannot 
hear. That has been our position here. If 
every man when he came here would have spoken 
naturally as he speaks at home, he would have given 
what he had to say without rhetoric, perhaps ; he 



323 



would not have preached ; he would not have 
sought to beat the air ; but actually coming here to 
this rostrum, where I now stand, he is enticed to do 
it because he has to elevate his voice so high. Give 
us a place of assembly where we can hear each 
other, and I venture to say all these diihculties will 
disappear. You never can be orderly in any assem- 
bly where you camiot hear. That has been the 
great difficulty at the present time. 

You say that four hundred is too large a body. 
Well, how large is the House of Commons i They 
have managed to get along for a great many years 
with over six himdred members, nearly double your 
number now, and they have managed a great na- 
tion. Do you tell me that you gentlemen, Chris- 
tian gentlemen, who come here, cannot 
be otherwise than tmnultuous ? I do not 
believe it. I will not concede it. If you 
can hear, you will attend. You may depend 
we shall find more wisdom in four hundred men 
here than in two hundred. But at all events, what 
I say is, if you diminish the number now because 
you cannot stand four, you must diminish it at the 
next session to three ; and because you cannot stand 
that you will come to two, and you will go on, 
and once you break this body to only two represen- 
tatives from each Diocese, I tell you you have lost 
almost your whole value on the Dioceses 
of this Church. You may not agree with me in 
my views, but I think I have as much expe- 
rience as almost anybody here, and I do not 
think that I am very far wrong in telling you that 
if you diminish your numbers so much, you will 
carry less sympathy home. You will gather less 
sympathy here, and therefore you will carry less 
home. We have all agreed that it is the sjrmpathy 
which this body creates among those who are as- 
sembled from such distant parts of our country, and 
which they carry back, that encourages the heart of 
the Church. Diminish the streams by which that is 
carried out, and you will very soon diminish the 
supply. 

I must confess that I am also desirous that the 
provincial system should be adopted, because I be- 
lieve that if you knit provinces together, and they 
are concentrated in a body that shall not meet so 
often as this, you will have then something which 
will always unite the whole, and there will be a con- 
tinual stream of sympathy and good feeling going 
through the whole. I stand alone on the subject of 
provinces in the Committee of which I am a mem- 
ber ; but I believe you cannot help it ; you cannot 
resist it. If you are driven to diminish your num- 
bei^, you ought to be driven to your provincial 
system. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. It seems 
to me, sir, that this is a very simple matter, and 
therefore, of course, I only wish to say two or three 
words about it. 

I can readily understand that the question of 
change in the administration of the Church from 
the present system to that of the provincial systems 
might naturally come under consideration when 
this subject is being debated from the present stand- 
point ; but I do not thing it ought to affect the ac- 
tion of this House on this question, for this reason : 
The matter of Provinces will, in course of 
time, be settled by the geographical necessities 
of this country. It is a foregone conclusion 
that we must have the provincial system in Amer- 
ica some of these days. A great many persons who 
advocated the provincial system as a theory urged it 
upon the Church some time ago ; and the possibility 
at least of debating the question and putting it in a 
tentative form was accomplished ; but even in those 
Dioceses which were the best prepared for the pro- 
vincial system there has never been an assembling, 



if I am not mistaken, of so-called Deputies to the 
provincial synod. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Only one. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Once. 
" The sober second thought" of the Church has 
certainly decided the question that the Church is 
not yet prepared for the provincial system, although 
we all feel that it will come whenever the Church 
in this country is so organized throughout its whole 
area in Dioceses, and it can then be done satis- 
factorily to all concerned; and I am quite 
prepared to say that I am myself entirely 
ready to give my vote and support to that organiza- 
tion, if it should come in my day, whenever the 
time is ripe. But, meantime , this question comes 
up in reference to what may be called the popular 
branch of the legislature of the Church. Om' body 
by the multiplication of Dioceses is becoming very 
large, and I think it will be admitted 
by all who have indulged in any observation 
upon the conduct of legislative assemblies that all 
very large bodies are, of necessity, turbulent bo- 
dies. The necessity of making one's self heard, as 
has ah'eady been spoken, aside from any other con- 
sideration, gives a certain, character of turbulence 
to the body. It is a matter of the greatest 
importance that a religious body assembled 
for the purpose of legislating for the interests 
of Christ's Church should not be charge- 
able with any such element of malad- 
ministration. ~We ought to have the utmost de- 
corrmi and solemnity in all of our deliberations; and 
I appeal to the rehgious sensibility of every mem- 
ber of this body if he has not been shocked more 
than once by scenes in this assembly when in the 
midst of tumult resort has been had to parliament- 
ary tactics for the sake of defeating or carrying a 
measure which could not be fairly comprehended by 
the body and which was sought to be rushed through 
in one direction or the other by the mere tricks of 
legislation. From all this, as has been before said 
in this body, as applied to another matter, " good 
Lord, deliver us." 

We ought to be free from any such characteriza- 
tion as this implies, and we can only be free from it 
by keeping this body within Umited numbers. In 
my humble judgment, it is a.lready too large. I am 
not in favor of reducmg the number by one-half, 
for I think that is too great a jump at once ; but I 
am strongly in favor of the reduction by one from 
the clerical and one from the lay deputation of every 
Diocese, which, bear in mind, cannot take effect un- 
der six years, during which time there will be 
probably twenty new Dioceses represented, 
and before we can fairly have the benefit of this 
change of the Constitution we shall find ourselves 
so large a body as to be quite unmanageable ; and 
I hope — I would remark here incidentally — that 
whjle we are so large a body, the gentlemen to 
whose wisdom the matter of preparing rules for 
the next General Convention shall be committed 
will take into consideration the matter of restoring 
the previous question, so that we can have that 
most valuable, as I think in all legislative 
assemblies, of all rules, which has here been charac- 
terized, I think, very unfairly as a gag rule, but 
which has another alternative operating in this 
body to precisely the same effect, to wit : laying on 
the table, except to the disadvantage that we have 
no opportunity under that rule of resorting to and 
acting upon the main question. 

I only indicate this as a part of what we shall be 
compelled to do in consideration of the largeness of 
our numbers. If, in the course of six, twelve or 
fifteen years, we find it is important for us to have 
the provincial system established in this 
country, we can, with very great fa- 
cility, restore to the different Dioceses a 



324 



larger representation here, if it be thought 
desirable, and in anticipation of such action which 
is said to require six years, we could have concur- 
rently this other action restoring to the Dioceses the 
same representation to go into effect at the time 
the provincial system went into effect. So I do not 
see the force of that argument. 

This is a matter for our present convenience, for 
preserving dignity, for securing prompt, intelligent 
consideration of the business brought before us, and 
for accomplishing the purpose of our assembling 
directly and quickly, instead of cii'cmtously and 
very slowly. 

I commend the measure, therefore, to the consid- 
eration of this House without indulging in some 
other allusions in which the distinguished Deputy 
from South Carolina has anticipated me, and which 
I think were very well. Our debates, when we are a 
large body, are entirely different in tone and tem- 

Eer from that which they ought to have, which they 
ave had in days that are passed, and which they 
will again have if this body is reduced in its mem- 
bership by twenty-five per cent. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. May I be al- 
lowed to make the motion, on the understanding 
that if it passes three is recommended, that the re- 
port be recommitted. If it be recommitted, we un- 
derstand that we are to report three. I make the 
motion in order to get an end of the question. 
The PRESIDENT. That is the motion already. 
Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move simply 
that the report be recommitted. 
The PRESIDENT. Without instructions ? 
Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Understanding 
that the recommitment is an instruction. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
The gentleman says the vote to recommit, if car- 
ried, wiU be understood by the Committee as in- 
structions to report three. With that understand- 
ing we may safely vote. 

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I hope it will be 
understood that if we vote not to recommit we 
shaU then vote at once to concur in the report of 
the Committee. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. If we take 
the vote now and vote down the proposition, that is 
an end of it. If we recommit, it will come back and 
be just as debatable then as it is now. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. That is true; I 
withdraw the motion. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion to recommit is 
withdrawn. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I should like to 
have an opportunity of saying something more on 
this point. I have a reason which I think will open 
the minds of this Convention to something more 
important. We have before us a proposal, and 
have had for years, of what is called the provincial 
system. That provincial system, in its plans, 
is a means for destroying this General Convention. 
It is a means to compel us to commit suicide. It is 
a means whereby we shall meet only once in ten 
years, and then, being perfectly unacquainted one 
with another, we shall go home, having done 
nothing. It is a means of breaking this Church up 
into four, five, or seven great accumulations of 
States, each of which is to be called a province. 

Now, sir, to this proposal of a provincial sys- 
tem, so caUed, I am opposed. It is proposed that 
each of the Confederate provinces shall have the 
same power that the General Convention has ; that 
is to say, equal with us. I believe that this so-caUed 
General Convention, which gentlemen have caUed 
the great Provincial Council of the Church, but 
which I caU the great National Council of the Church, 
is one of the greatest means of maiataining catholic 
union^ pureness of living, and vanity of doctrine, 
and I wish it not destroyed by any means in the 



I world, I want the State council of all the Dioceses 
I within the State, and this great national council, to 
I remain just as they are. That is my doctrine. 
' Now, I want to complain a little with regard to 
! my distinguished friend, Dr. Fulton. I have a good 
temper, and I hope I do not get angry, but it did 
i make me feel bad to see the reverend doctor get 
I up here and propose in his speech, which was, like 
all the speeches he makes, a very good speech, 
that this institution of a national council could be 
permitted to grow so big, so unwieldy, that finally 
it would spread out so that it should become so en- 
larged and unmanageable that the provincial sys- 
tem, in order, to avoid the difficulties, would be 
absolutely possible. I say that it is hard to hear 
that on the floor of this House, and yet at the same 
time that was solely and exclusively the warp of 
the woof of his speech. 

I have told you before, and I will tell you now, 
that there is an ultimate shape in which this great 
national council of the Church shall come, in which 
it must come, and that is the mode of the Primitive 
Church, in which one Bishop, one clergyman, and 
one layman were the representatives of each 
Diocese in the Church. Members of the Conven- 
tion must look upon the fact as I do, that this 
is a Church of the whole nation, and I say, 
if in every city there shall be a Bishop and the 
Dioceses shall be six hundred, if you please, I am 
perfectly content that that modus of representation 
should prevail. I fully and entirely agree with my 
distinguished friend, the Lay Deputy from South 
Carolina, that to a council of six hundred and fifty- 
eight there is no objection, and I can tell this 
great council of the Church that I know, 
and every man who knows Church history 
knows, that there have been councils of 
one thousand. I have no objection to numbers, 
therefore I do not desire to reduce the members in 
any way ; but I see the time coming when in the 
State of New York there will be from sixteen to 
twenty Dioceses, and when in the State of Illinois 
there will be from ten to twenty. Look forward to 
that time, and you will see that, if we re- 
duce gradually the proportion, we shall not 
reduce the numbers in any way; but at this 
present time we must look out for the future, we 
must look out for a time which is rising upon the 
Church. We must have the eye of statesmen and 
not of politicians. Therefore I think that perhaps 
at this present time the reduction of numbers by 
twenty-five per cent, will be a thing preparing for 
the future — a thing to which all men will agree, and 
in which no man will be done injury to in any one 
way. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Mr. President, it 
is unfortunate that in the discussion of this vast 
question, the provincial system, which involves the 
ruin of the Church, should be presented now. My 
learned friend from Long Island says it is a foregone 
conclusion that we are to have a provincial system. 
I deny the fact, unless it is a foregone conclu- 
sion, at the same time, that we are to dis- 
solve the American Union, for the division 
of this Church into provinces is the same thing as 
the division of the American political Union into 
seven separate nations. That is proved by a report 
lying on yom^ table now, which I could have wished 
might have been taken up deliberately, and exam- 
ined proposition by proposition, to draw the atten- 
tion of each member, for it reaches to the in-esist- 
ible conclusion that the proposition can lead 
to nothing but disruption, dismemberment and total 
ruin. I would no more permit the division 
of the Church in this way than if I were in Con- 
gress. I would agree that the Union should be dis- 
solved, for both measures would involve ruin, and I 
say the ruin of this Church would be a greater 



325 



calamity to mankind than the niin of the Union 
itself. In the future consequences it is more im- 
portant that the Church should be preserved united 
than that the Union should be, great as the calamity 
of a dissevered Union would be. 

We are therefore on a most important question, 
and we ought to have time to discuss it. A report 
lies on 3^our table embracing, I think, eleven succes- 
sive propositions, each one of which received the 
assent of that Committee with one exception. Each 
one of those propositions by its weight and gravity 
requires to be separately disengaged, and of which 
you cannot inform your minds sufficiently in a dis- 
cussion like this. 

Let me call yom- attention to another thing : This 
is a mode of temporarily relieving this body ; and 
it would relieve it for 1as^enty-five years to come, 
probably, for the Dioceses would not become so nume- 
rous but what we could still get along in that time. 
But it has been proposed to leave the number as it 
is; not that it is proper, but for the pui'pose of 
making this body so unwieldy as to compel 
us to consent to the provincial system, in 
which there lurks a hierarchy. I wish gentlemen 
to attend to what I say. That scheme is a great 
plan, with Ai'chbishops and Archdeacons and all 
the gorgeous hierarchies, to be crowned at last in a 
Patriarchate, which we do not want. That is the 
object, and the ambitious gentlemen who pursue 
that object with untiring tenacity throw obstacles 
in the way, and have for the last two Conventions, 
of every effort which seeks to apply the true 
remedy. 

I propose to relieve the weight of this body by 
throwing a quarter of it overboard, and when 
necessary throwing over another quarter, so that 
we may not be compelled to adopt a provincial sys- 
tem which would lead to our certain dismember- 
ment and ruin, and we should be repeating the ec- 
clesiastical history of the Old Word. The thing 
is fraught with the most serious conse- 
quences, and I stand here, if it was the last act of 
my life, to implore and beseech you that you will 
not withhold this relief, but that you will act upon 
the hope of living at least twenty-five years longer, 
that we may not do that which would surely end' 
in the dissolution of this Church, 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. Mr. President, 
I am in favor of the amendment of the Reverend 
Deputy from Wisconsin reducing the number of the 
members of this House. I am so much in favor of 
that principle that I would be quite willing to 
make this assembly still more a popular one, and I 
was prepared, had this proposition been recommitted 
to the Committee onAmendments to theConstitution, 
to propose also to them to take into consideration 
another proposition, namely, that of allowing each 
Diocese a representation in this body of two clergy- 
men and two laymen, and an additional Clerical 
Deputy and an additional Lay Deputy to every 
fifty, seventy-five, or one hundred clergymen, as 
the Convention might decide. 

But while I am in favor of the amendment pro- 
posed by the Reverend Deputy from Wisconsin, I do 
object that this be mingled up with a discussion of 
the idea of the provincial system. The arguments 
adduced here are, I think, fallacious, for the 
term "provincial system," in one man's mind 
means one thing and in other man's mind it means 
another thing. In my mind it does not 
bear that sense which has been given 
to it by the speaker who last occupied the 
floor. I hold that the provincial system in the past 
did not spring Minerva-Uke from the brain of any 
one individual. It was not an idea which was con- 
ceived in any one's mind, and which the circum- 
stances of the Church were thereafter made to fit. I 
hold, rather, that it grew up v^dth the necessities 



of the Church and was indicated by the wants of the 
Church ; that indeed the Church itself is no fixed 
framework into which circumstances must be 
thinist. Rather it is of infinite flexibility. Rather 
it is capable of adapting itself to the individual in 
all lois wants, to human society in all its conditions. 

Therefore, while I am in favor of a certain kind 
of provincial system, I am not in favor of reviving 
any mediaeval idea, but rather I am in favor of 
such a provincial sj^stem as is indicated by the 
wants of the Church in the United States, 
and therefore any act of ours looking in that 
direction is a mere experiment, and only 
tentative. It is in order that we may 
meet something of the wants of the Church 
that I would have a commission to plan and con- 
trive some means whereby Dioceses may be confed- 
erated, for the time is coming, sooner or later, 
in which some such action as is proposed by my 
reverend brother will be necessary. This body 
must be reduced in number ; otherwise, before 
twenty years are over, it will be double the number 
it is now. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi 
dent and gentlemen, I did not want to speak on this 
subject, but unfortunately the debate has widened 
down into the question of the provincial system. I 
did want to haA^e something to say concerning the 
report which was presented here by the Chairman 
of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, 
which seemed to me a perfectly reactionary report, 
and going back in every respect ; but the discussion 
has come up, and so I must say a few words on this 
very important subject. 

I begin by saying that I have not the slightest ob- 
jection to the amendment proposed by the Clerical 
Deputy from Wisconsin (Dr. Adams), and I shall 
vote for it, only I must not be understood to vote 
for it on the ground that it goes against the pro- 
vincial system. And yet I do not like to say " goes 
against the provincial system," because there is 
an ambiguity in this House with regard 
to those words, some men meaning one thing by the 
provincial system, and some men meaning another, 
and arguments are used against the one system 
which probably would not apply to the other. I 
think I can bring this properly to the mind of the 
House by recalling the history of the provincial 
system, and what has been done in some of the Gene- 
ral Conventions heretofore. 

The PRESIDENT. Doctor, you disclaim having 
any objection to the proposition which is before the 
House, and formally announce your intention to 
discuss the provincial system on its own merits. 
Now I hardly think that can be in order. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Certainly, 
if the Chair tells me it is not in order and I can 
make my i-emarks when that report comes up, I 
shall be glad to do so ; but I know the habit here of 
discussing questions in the wrong order, and when 
the time comes for discussing them regularly, the 
whole thing goes by the board, and as I found 
everybody saying something about the provincial 
system, I naturally wanted to get in my " say." 

The PRESIDENT. But you have disclaimed any 
objection to the proposition before the House. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. That 
shows what it is to be too frank. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. Mr. President and 
gentlemen, as I moved to lay this business on the 
table, perhaps it will be proper for me to say a few 
words touching the general question. I had 
hoped to have avoided this subject, be- 
cause it is my experience in this House that 
where a committee representing its sentiments so 
generally as this Committee does, reports against a 
measure, it is a waste of time to discuss it. I sup- 
posed that that was the sense of the House, and that 



326 



1 was saving the time of the House when I made 
the motion to lay it on the table. With that expla- 
nation, which I hope will excuse me, I intend to 
make a few observations upon the general subject. 

I think it is always time enough to meet a diffi- 
culty when it arises. As my good friend, Mr. Lin- 
coln, used to say, "Do not attempt to cross the 
river until you get there." I have not experienced 
that inconvenience which other gentlemen so much 
complain of with respect to the numbers of this body. 
It has been one of the most gratifying experiences 
of my life to have been mingled with'' this body. I 
have not seen any turbulence, any disorder, anything 
calling for cutting down its numbers. On the con- 
trary, I think that if it could be increased a little of 
the same material, it would be all the better for it. 
There is a safety in numbers, and debate is useful. 
My experience and obsei-vation of legislative mat- , 
ters is generally that the best service that 
is done is in defeating legislation very often. That 
has been my observation, and it has been consider- 
able, as many of you may suppose. 

When you have a great body of intelligent men 
coming together, you are not subject so much to 
the influence of individual talents and individual 
powers. A great effect is produced by having a 
large, respectable, and numerous representation. 
I believe in numbers. I believe in numbers in 
Church and State. It is the safety of the State and 
of the Church. 

We have inconveniences here, I know. I have a 
voice that enables me to speak out of doors to very \ 
large crowds, and therefore I can speak easily in j 
this House ; but 320 or 400 men is no number to 
speak to in a house that had any sort 
of property for speaking in at all. This 
is the most wretched place that any human j 
being ever tried to articulate in. [Laughter.] | 
and so it has proved to me. In any proper place, i 
where gentlemen could consult at all, your numbers 
would not be an objection. If you had only fifty i 
men here you would have the same difficulty in such ! 
a place as this. I hope, therefore, the House wiU 
not be precipitated into a measure of this kind by 
the inconvenience which we have had here. 

Another matter I wish to suggest. We are very ^ 
full in this Convention, because we have had a great 
subject which interests people to come here from all 
quarters of the country, and our delegations have 
been full ; but in less exciting times, perhaps the 
House would not be so full. If you cut down the 
numbers, you may reduce the body more than would 
be convenient. 

Altogether, I do not see any pressing necessity for 
consuming the time of this body at this period of 
the session in debating the subject, and hence I tried 
to get rid of it. You see we have the provincial 
system behind it, and that is to be hitched on, and 
we are to have that subject brought up, although 
the gentlemen who are most in favor of that scheme 
tell us in advance that the time is not ripe for it. I 
hope somebody will move to lay that on the table 
when it comes up, and let us do the practical, the 
pressing work of the Church in the last hours which 
we can possibly sit. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I only 
want fifteen seconds to ask three questions. It is 
very often urged against this Church that it is 
not a Church of the people, that the popular voice 
has no great effect in it, that the people have no 
representation in the government of its affairs. 
My first question is. How will this proposed 
legislation affect that charge ? The next 
question is, How comes it to pass that men have 
only come to a knowledge of the unwieldy charac- 
ter of this General Convention, when the idea of a 
province or provinces has got into their heads ? 
The third question is, If the affairs of great 



empires can be taken care of in a decorous, or- 
derly, dignified manner, as in Great Britain, 
by seven hundred legislators, by a larger number 
than the French Assembly, by an equal number in 
Germany, how comes it to pass that four hundred 
or five hundred or six hundred men in this country 
must be a riotous, turbulent assembly ? These are 
the three questions. 

Mr. BARTHOLOW, of Kansas. I suggest that 
we have but little time. Our numbers have already 
thinned out. I move to lay the whole matter on 
the table. 

The PRESIDENT. Is the gentleman aware that 
that motion was taken half an hoiu- ago and decided 
in the negative s' 

Rev. Dr. MINNIGERmDE, of Virginia. Mr. 
President, I have not troumed the Convention here- 
tofore, but I hope I shall be permitted to say 
a few words on this subject. I am very much in 
favor of laying this subject on the table; but, inas- 
much as the gentleman from Maryland, who made 
that motion a little while ago, has himself made 
some remarks on the subject, I think it is fair that 
some other remarks be heard. 

I am in favor of laying it on the table because I 
think it is a dangerous motion at this time, and I 
would like to get rid of it. I con- 
sider it dangerous for the reason that it 
militates and strikes at the very Constitution 
of our body. The Constitution of the General 
Convention has followed the wise principle which 
is adopted in the oi ganization of all society — the 
balance of power. We have the House of Bishops, 
and then we have the Lower House, consisting of 
equal numbers of clergy and laity. Reduce that 
number to its minimum, and we shall have the 
House of Bishops overriding us more than it can do 
now. Increase the number of Bishops bo six hun- 
dred, as my honored and venerable friend 
from Wisconsin said, and the Church is presbyteria- 
nized and the Presbj^ters of the Church are nowhere. 
I think that we ought to retain the balance of power. 
It may be said that three members of each Diocese 
are sufficient. There are sufficient for nurnbers I 
agree, but they prevent a divided vote of Dioceses, 
and thereby rob the minority of its rights. 

Further, say to the Dioceses, "Send only two 
members of each order, " and I would much rather 
see two members from each order than three, be- 
cause then the rights of the minority are gone— say 
each Diocese sends only two members, and you will 
have pretty much the same representatives from 
every Diocese all the time, and the whole business 
of the Convention will be carried on in the old way, 
and no new ideas, no new measures, can be pre- 
sented. I thinlc, too, that the minorities in the 
Dioceses will be better protected in their rights if 
they have four members, and we thus allow the 
different Dioceses to send a member of the minority, 
as we see is done in a great many of the Dioceses 
represented on this floor. 

I further think that at these triennial meetings 
the Church meets not only for legislation, but the 
members from the North and the South and the 
East and the West should become acquainted with 
each other, and should realize that brotherly feel- 
ing which is the very essence of the communion of 
saints on earth, and join their prayers and join their 
counsels for the advancement of God's glory and 
the progress of His Holy Church. 

I move that the whole subject belaid on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the whole 
subject be laid on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Now, as every- 
thing has to be discussed at such length, I respect- 
fully ask general consent to bring up one report a 



327 



little in advance of its order. The next report in 
order is — 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central IS'ew York. I en- 
quire whether the other subject has been disposed 
of. 

The PRESIDENT. I thought so. The motion 
was to lav on the table the whole matter— the reso- 
lution from the Committee and the amendment. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. The 
Chair is mistaken. The motion was merely to lay 
the amendment on the table. ["No." "No."] I 
apoeal to the gentleman who made the motion. 

The PRESIDENT. The whole subject was laid 
on the table. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I want 
a ruling of the Chair. I say, and I say upon per- 
sonal Imowledge, that the motion was to lay only 
the amendment on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. I put the question on laying 
the whole subject on the tabie. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I voted 
for the motion under the impression I have stated. 
Let us have the vote again, understandingly. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, 
you stated distinctly before the vote that we were to 
lay the whole subject on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. That is what I heard the mo- 
tion to be. But a call is made that the vote be taken 
over again. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I suggest to the 
Deputy from Central New York that the same re- 
sult is obtained that he desires. What is the differ 
ence between laying the amendment and laying 
the whole subject of the report of the Committee 
on the table ? That carries the report. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. If you 
lay the report o f the Committee on the table, you 
do not approve it. 

Mr. STEPHENSON, of Kentucky. It certainly 
coincides with the action of the Committee. No 
amendment is then proposed. This Convention 
takes no action to amend the Constitution, and this 
is the substance of the Committee. We can 
lay the whole subject on the table, and then 
if "we want a substantive vote on the report of the 
Committee we can reach it. Knowing that my hon- 
orable friend agrees that the report of the Commit- 
tee should be sustained by the House, he wiU ac- 
complish that result most certainly by laying the 
whole subject on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. It seems to me we are losing 
a great deal of valuable time in disputing about 
nothing. 

Mr. COMSTOCK, of Central New York. I ac- 
quiesce. 

PARTS OF DIOCESES TO BE MISSIONARY DISTRICTS. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The report 
next in order is the alteration of the Prayer-Book, 
that it cannot be done without constitutional action, 
which, of course, affects a measure here. 
There is afterwards a report coming Tip on 
the same subject on a different phase 
of the matter not relating to that one point ; but as 
we probably shall debate that here, and as we are 
under a kind of compact from what we have done 
to accomphsh one thing certainly, I ask imani- 
mous consent to bring up now the report on 
the change of Article 5, which was as it were 
agreed upon in the Committee of Con- 
ference between the House of Bishops and this 
House. We passed those acts by which Texas and 
California were reheved finally in a Committee 
of Conference, by a kind of understanding that 
the Constitution should be amended so as to 
prevent the dLBBculty hereafter. This change of 
the Constitution was passed in the last General 
Convention, and was the one in which there was a 



j first report made, that it had failed or fallen to the 
I ground by our not giving the Bishops three days to 
i answer in. The last Convention has agreed to 
i this change of the Constitution, and I presume 
j every man has his mind made up upon it, and 
' I would respectfully ask unanimous consent to bring 
! that up now out of its order. The report was made 
on the nineteenth day of the session on page 159 of 
The Daily Churchman. It is merely re-enacting 
what was done at the last Convention, but requires 
a vote by orders, which will give us all a chance to 
: rest a little. 

i The resolution was read as follows : 

I ' ' Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). That 
it be recommended and proposed that the following 
addition be made to Article 5 of the Constitution, to 
wit : Insert at the end of the article the words, 
' The General Convention may, upon the application 
of the Bishop and Convention of an organized Dio- 
cese, setting forth that the territory of the Diocese 
is too large for due Episcopal supervision by the 

! Bishop of the Diocese, set off a portion of suchDio- 

j cesan territory, which stiall, thereupon, be placed 
within or constitute a missionary jurisdiction, or a 
part thereof, as the House of Bishops may deter- 
mine.' " 

The SECRETARY. May I suggest the change of 
the word "jurisdiction " to " district, " in accord- 
ance with our present provision ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Very well. 

The PRESIDENT. The vote on this amendment 
to the Constitution must be taken by Dioceses and 
orders. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I should like to 
ask a question. I imderstand that according to the 
decision just made in initiating a change in the Con- 
stitution, a vote by Dioceses is necessary. I would 
most respectfully suggest that it is not necessary as 
I read the ninth article. It is only when the change 
is finally to be ratified. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I call the gen- 
tleman to order on this point. The House has 
! decided this very morning that this is the proper 
way. Therefore this question has been settled. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I am asking the 
Chair whether it be nol chat the final ratification is 
the change on which a vote is to be taken by 
Dioceses and orders ? 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair decided the other 
way this morning, and the House have acted upon 
that decision. The Clerk will call the roll of the 
Diocese, and members will answer to their names. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. Allow me to ask 
whether, if there be no objection, the Dioceses cannot 
be called, and answer by a single vote, instead of 
calling the names of the several Deputies ? 

The PRESIDENT. I presume that can be done 
if there be no objection. The Chair will direct that 
the vote be taken in that way^ no objection being 
made. 

The question being taken, the result was as fol- 
lows; 

Clerical Vote — 40 Dioceses represented, aU 
voting in the atnrmative. 

Lay Vote — 83 Dioceses represented, 32 voting in 
the affirmative ; and one divided. 

The PRESIDENT. The proposed amendment to 
the Constitution is adopted for the present, to be 
sent down to the Diocesan Conventions. 

j the presiding bishop. 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts, from the 
Committee on Expenses, submitted the following re- 
port, which was read : 

' ' The Committee on Expenses, to whom was re- 
ferred the report of the Special Committee in rela- 
tion to the Senior and Presiding Bishop, respectfully 



328 



report that they have given careful consideration 
to this matter, which is of great moment. 

" It is now proposed, for the first time in the liis- 
tory of the Church, to make an appropria- 
tion for the support of the Presiding Bi- 
shop. The Committee on Expenses are op- 
posed to such action, which imposes upon this body 
the duty of providing a retiring pension. Each 
Diocese is bound to take care of its own Bishop 
when overtaken by age or infirmity. An appro- 
priation for tlie expenses of the Presiding Bishop 
was made for the first time by the last Convention. 
These expenses are in stationery, postage, and clerk- 
hire. The travelling and other expenses of the 
Presiding Bishop are paid by the Diocese for which 
he acts as cons^crator. 

"This Convention has passed a resolution, pro- 
viding for the payment of $500 for the three years 
intervening until the meeting of the next General 
Convention. Your Committee recommend the pass- 
age of the following resolution, by which more 
ample provision for the expenses of the Presiding 
Bishop will be made, and the payments will be 
annual. 

"Resolved, That the Treasm^er of this Conven- 
tion be authorized to pay the sum of $250 a year to 
the Presiding Bishop for expenses incurred in the 
discharge of his duties, in lieu of the sum of $500 
for three years as provided in a former resolu- 
tion." 

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. I suppose 
that the House understands the matter which is 
thus brought before it and the ground of action, I 
will only mention that it comes before us at a very 
late period, when really we have spent all our 
money by previous appropriations, and we shall 
have to make a new assessment upon the Dio- 
ceses to provide for any expenses which 
are imposed upon us by any subsequent 
action of this Convention. I merely mention this 
incidentally ; but it is the opinion of the Committee, 
while the circumstances of this case are acknowl- 
edged to be very pressing, that this Convention is 
not bound to provide retiring pensions for Bishops ; 
and many are of the opmion that the present rule 
and custom, by which the oldest Bishop 
is necessarily the Presiding Bishop, is not one which 
it is for the interest of that House should be con- 
tinued, and we should be sanctioning and endeavor- 
ing to continue it if we enter on this principle. If 
we begin now to provide a retiring pension we shall 
have to do it in other cases. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The hour for the 
order of the day has arrived. It is after four 
o'clock. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I hope there wiU be 
imanimous consent to act on that resolution at 
once. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I have no objec- 
tion if it does not lead to discussion. 

Rev. Dr. PERKII^S, of Kentucky. I am in favor 
of the resolution reported by this Committee. At 
the same time I think it due to the Diocese of Ken- 
tucky that a brief statement shall be made in con- 
nection with this matter. 

The PRESIDENT. Then it will have to go over. 

Rev-. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. Very well. 
Then I wiU simply say that the statement would re- 
lieve the Diocese of Kentucky from any suspicion 
of not having discharged its duty to its Bishop. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

MISSIONARY BISHOP TO SHANGHAI. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I wish to 
present a resolution for a recess to-day until half- 
past seven o'clock, the House to resume its session 
at that hom\ 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The order of the 



day is called, and this cannot be received, Th6 
Committee on Canons meet to-night with the Com- 
mittee on Canons of the House of Bishops. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution cannot be 
received. The House will be cleared. The order of 
the day is actiou on the nomination of the Mission- 
ary Bishop to Shanghai, and persons not members 
will retire from the chapel. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
move that that order be suspended. I understand 
that when we get into secret session we shall have 
no nominee before us to act upon. If that is the 
case — 

Several DEPUTIES. We do not know that. * 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman 
has no understanding on the subject. 

The PRESIDENT. The House wiU be cleared. 

The chapel having been cleared, the House pro- 
ceeded to consider with closed doors the nomination 
of a Missionary Bishop to Shanghai. 

While the doors were closed a message (No. 72) 
was received from the House of Bishops announcing 
the adoption by that House of the following resolu- 
tion: 

"Resolved, The Rev. William Pendleton Orrick 
having declined the nomination to the Missionary 
Episcopate of Shanghai and parts adjacent, that 
this House requests the House of Deputies to re- 
turn to it the nomination committed to it in Mes- 
sage No. 37 from this Plouse." 

The doors were opened at half -past five o'clock, 
when the vote on the election of Rev. Mr. Orrick as 
Missionary Bishop of Shanghai and parts adjacent 
was announced to be as foUows : 

Clergy — 41 Dioceses voting — Ayes, 40 ; nay, 1. 

Laity — 32 Dioceses voting — Ayes, 32. 

Mr. LAMBERTON, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
move to now concur in the message of the House of 
Bishops withdrawing the nomination to the Mis- 
sionary Episcopate of Shanghai, and parts adja- 
cent. 

The PRESIDENT. That is not necessary. The 
election is the best answer we can give. 

Mr. LAMBERTON, of Central Pennsylvania. 
Very well. 

THE NEW HYMNAL. 

A message (No. 73) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that'House of the following 
resolution : 

" Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
1st. That, instead of the matter printed on the thu-d 
page of the revised Hymnal, there shall hereafter 
be printed in all authorized copies of the book the 
joint resolution in relation to the Hymnal adopted 
by this Convention. 

" 2d. That hereafter certificates of accuracy in edi- 
tions of the Hymnal be issued to publishers of the 
Trustees of the Fund for the relief of the widows and 
orphans of deceased clergymen, and of aged, infirm 
and disabled clergymen, ia whom the copyright is 
vested, and by them only. 

" 3d. That the matter on the fourth page of the re- 
vised Hymnal be printed in all authorized copies as 
a Canon. 

ORDER OF DEACONESSES. 

A message (No. 74) from the House of Bishops 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolution: 

" Resolved (the House of Deputies concm"ring), 
That the Canon ■ Of Deaconesses or Sisters,' re- 
ported by the Joint Committee to this Convention, 
be referred to a Joint Committee consisting of three 
Bishops, three Clerical, and three Lay Deputies, to 
report to the next General Convention. 

' 'And that the House of Bishops names as such Joint 
Committee on its own part : The Bishop of Alabama : 



.^29 



the Bishop of Long Island ; the Bishop of Central 
Pennsjdvauia. 
The 'resolution was concurred in. 

FORCE OF JOINT RESOLUTIONS. 

A message (No. 75) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That a Special Joint Committee be appointed to en- 
quire and report to the next General Convention 
as to the force, relative to the legislation and dis- 
cipline of the Church, of any joint resolution passed 
by the two Houses. 

^ " And the House of Bishops informs the House of 
Deputies that it has appointed as such joint commit- 
tee on the part of this House the Bishops of Central 
New York, Arkansas, and New Hampshire." 
The resolution was concurred in. 

THE BAPTISMAL OFFICE. 

On motion of Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachu- 
setts, the report of the Committee on Canons rela- 
tive to the Baptismal Service was made the order of 
the day for to-morrow, at eleven o'clock. 

On motion, the House adjourned until to-morrow, 
at nine o'clock a.m. 



LETTERS PROM THE EASTERN CHURCH. 

The letters which follow were recently received 
by me from the Patriarch of Constantinople and 
the Metropolitan of Athens. As will be seen, they 
are in response to the resolutions of our last General 
Convention, copies of which I had the honor of 
transmitting to these eminent ecclesiastics. 

CHARLES R. HALE, 
Secretary of the Russo-Greek Committee, Rector of 

St. John's Church, Auburn. New York. 
Christmas, 1872. 

The resolutions above referred to, adopted at Bal- 
timore, October 24, 1871, are as follows : 

"Resolved, That this Convention cordially re- 
ciprocates the expression of fraternal regard so 
frequently received within the past three years from 
the Most Reverend the Patriarch of Constanti- 
nople, the Most Reverend the Patriarch of Jerusa- 
lem, the Most Reverend the Metropolitan of Athens, 
and the Holy Governing Synod of the Orthodox 
Church in Russia, by dignitaries of the Church of 
England, and by members of this Chmxh, both of 
the clergy and the laity; that it takes grateful re- 
cognition of the courteous action by which the ad- 
ministration of holy rites for the burial of the dead 
of our communion has been provided for by the au- 
thorities of the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church ; and 
that it earnestly desires the continuance and in- 
crease of such intercourse and mutual good offices 
of love. 

" Resolved, That the Joint Committee on the sub- 
ject of intercourse with the Russo-Greek Church be 
continued, and charged with the communication of 
the foregoing resolution to the venerable authorities 
of the several branches of the Holy Orthodox 
Church of the East. 

" Resolved, That the said Joint Committee be al- 
so charged with the duty of taking further steps for 
the acquisition and communication of such informa- 
tion as may be mutually important and interesting 
to this Church and to the Holy Orthodox Church of 
the East, with such publication thereof from time to 
time as may be deemed needful and prudent." 

Anthimus, by the Mercy of God Archbishop of 
Constantinople, New Rome, and QEcumenical Pa- 
triarch: 



►I-To the Rev. Charles R. Hale, Rector of St. John's 
Church, Auburn, New York, Secretary of the 
Committee, etc., Greeting in the Lord: 
We received with pleasure your letter, with the 
resolutioii of the General Convention of the Church 
in the United States of America, and for the pious 
sentiments expi-essed through you toward our most 
Holy CEcumenical Throne rendering you no ordina- 
ry thanks, we offer praise to God, the Author of 
peace, that of His boundless love and goodness He 
hath deigned to smooth for us the way toward a 
nearer approach of our two Churches, a matter 
which jarst began to be agitated three years since, 
doi-ing the patriarchate of om' revered predecessor, 
Gregory VI. , who so well arranged for the adminis- 
tration of holy rites at the burial of the dead of 
your communion, and lately made more plain 
through the manifestations of brotherly - kindness 
toward the Most Reverend the Arch^)ishop of Syra, 
in his recent visit to England. 

Now, when the base designs of evil-minded men 
surrounding the Church of God do not cease, on 
every side, to hurl against her the poisonous darts 
of unbelief, it seems to us that the present is the 
fitting time to quench, by mutual concession, the 
feelings of division of the churches, one from the 
other, which have till now held sway — for reasons 
known only to the Lord — on account of dogmatic 
difference ; and that we should hold out friendly 
hands, in order to join together, by the help of 
the Almighty, what have been separated, and to 
fulfil the words of our Saviour which He spake, 
calling upon His Heavenly Fa,ther just before His 
willing d'eath, "That all inay be one." — St. John 
xvii. 21. 

Announce, then, these things, and bring them 
before the Right Reverend Bishops, and the others, 
clergy and laity, composing the Synod of the 
Anglican Church in America, and be an interpre- 
ter of our desires for mutual conference through 
writing, and that we shall not cease, so far as in 
us lies, to strengthen and draw closer, by a nearer 
fellowship, the holy bond of love, for we are per- 
suaded that thus, and by evangelical love toward 
each other, we shall come, by the gift of God, to 
the God- wrought miracle of the unity of the 
churches. 

Since toward the original and archetype of our 
Orthodox Eastern Church your Church has shown 
a reverence beyond all others, we, also, heartily 
loving it, give to its reverend members, as also to 
you, beloved, our prayers, and bless you with both 
our ha.nds, invoking the best and saving blessings 
from God, the Giver of all good, whose grace and 
bormdless mercy be with you. 

"^^LThe Patriarch] of Constantinople, your fervent 
well-wisher in Christ. 

September 9-31, 1872. 



Athens, September 20, 1872. 
Reverend Charles [i?.] Hale : 

►J* We received with pleasure yours of the 24th of 
October, of the year past, in which we read with 
joy the resolutions of the most reverend of the 
American Church concerning their hearty desire for 
fellowship, in a spirit of Chi'istian love, with the 
Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. 

This desire and the prayer of the Episcopal Church 
in America have been harbingers of unspeakable 
joy to my aged soul, in these last days at least of 
my life, beholding from afar the rising hope of a 
coming, prayed for, brotherly drawing near and 
reunion of the Churches of Christ, to the glory of 
the Lord whom the Gospel declares to us, our Sa- 
viour Christ, the unity of His Holy Church. 

The heart of every true Christian is rent at the 
distressing sight of the present religious separation 



830 



and dissension, and, sometimes, even the enmity of 
Christians, in the world of ideas, and of the Spirit 
in which all ought to make up again one loving 
flock, tended invisibly by the one Good Shepherd. 

It is high time, then, that we all agree together in 
this, that it is altogether an michristian and an un- 
worthy thing that Christians should, in the name of 
Chiist Himself, slander, hate, and persecute one an- 
other. It is time that, leaving to the world, and to 
its rulers, hates, passions, and manifold divisions 
and differences, in the supernatural dominion of the 
kingdom of Christ, we should be inspired by His 
Holy Spirit alone, all of us perfecting in variety a 
spiritual unity. Fortunately, no one can charge 
the Eastern Church with being a deserter and a 
renegade from these cardinal principles of Catholic 
Christianity. By almost all falsely accused, at 
times persecuted, and often treated with utter un- 
fairness, to no one has she in an anti-Christian, 
brother-hating spirit returned the like, but from the 
first she continues holding up supplicating hands to 
Grod in behaK of those who persecute and oppress 
her. 

Sorrowful so often as, for the safety of the Divine 
principles of the Saviour, she is compelled to take 
in her hands the scourge to drive out of the temple 
those making " the house of God an house of mer- 
chandise," with gladness she offers most heartily 
her right hand to all desiring her spiritual fellow- 
ship. 

Never seeking any worldly advantages, pursuing 
no devious or hidden political or national aim, lean- 
ing upon no earthly support, but being the pm^e, 
spiritual fellowship of the faithful wherever they 
may be, the Eastern Orthodox Church is neither 
Greek, nor Russian, nor Graeco-Russ, nor Russo- 
Greek, as in your letter it is characterized, as I 
would it had not been, but one Holy Catholic and 
Apostolic Church, binding together, and at the same 
time raising up, all nations and all peoples into a 
spiritual unity above all distinctions of race. In 
this, reverend sir, consists the unity of the Eastern 
Church, manifold in its members, it is one in its co- 
hesive force and life-giving spirit. 

Unity, then, and miion with the Orthodox Church, 
is not a fusion or a talcing away of the natural 
and ethical diversity inwrought by God, it is not 
a slavish subjection of some to others ; it is not 
a despotic raising up or a tyrannical levelling of 
national pecuUarities and differences, but a cer- 
tain brotherly, harmonious binding together of 
spirit, manifested through a common creed, vol- 
untarily accepted of the fundamentals of the faith, 
which ohe Divine Scriptures, the Apostolic tradi- 
tion, and the CEcumenical Councils of the midi- 
vided Church have defined for us. 

Those who, in all places, are thus bound one to 
another, realize the "One, Holy, Catholic, and 
Apostolic" Orthodox Church. But that Church, 
proceeding on the universal and eternal principles 
of Christian love, does not by any means, being- 
asked, deny even to those not thus realizing her 
Catholic integrity, her fraternal anxiety for Chris- 
tian love, and the Christian performance of those 
fraternal offices to which our human nature gives 
a claim. In the Orthodox Church, to every one 
that asketh shall be given ; to him that knocketh, it 
it shall be opened. 

Acquainting you, Reverend Sir, and the Right 
Reverend Bishops of the Church in America, of 
these things, in all love, and with the best hopes, I 
pray the All- Wise and All-Good God to pour out 
upon you, and upon the whole nation of the United 
States, His blessings, giving to you all brotherly 
greeting in the Lord, I remain in the Lord, yonr 
fervent well-wisher, 

^ THEOPHILUS, of Athens, 

President of the Holy Synod. 



SoPHRONius, by the mercy of God, Pope and 
Patriarch of the Great City Alexandria, and of all 
Egypt. 

►t« Most Reverend Presbyter of the Church of St, 
John, Auburn, New York, our beloved son in the 
i Lord, Charles R. Hale, Grace to your Reverence 
and Peace from God. 

With great joy and Christian interest we received, 
toward the close of the month of February, the 
packet sent by your esteemed Reverence, in which 
were enclosed your own letter to us written on 
parchment, with the Resolutions of the great Synod 
of the Chm'ch in the United States of America, as- 
j sembied the 12th— 24th of October, 1871, in the city 
of Baltimore, and the privately printed Report of 
the Proceedings of the same Synod, written in the 
English tongue. Translating this into our Greek 
language, and studying all together with close at- 
tention and care, we were truly delighted, and cele- 
brated with praises of the Church the God-inspired 
zeal, and pious longing, which, following in the 
footsteps of the English Church, your particular 
Church also in the United States of America, shows 
for the unity of all the holy Churches of God, 
which, by God's inscrutable decrees, are now dis- 
severed one from another, and more especially for 
unity with the Holy Orthodox Church, For indeed 
v/e are justly persuaded that such manifestations of 
fraternal sympa,thy, and of tendencies towards fel- 
lowship, increasing and being mercifully made to 
work effectively, surely cannot but reach, as time 
goes on, the wished-for goal of cathohc unity. On 
the other hand, it deceives or escapes the 
' observation of no one, that until the 
! Lord vouchsafe the fulfilment of the great work 
I of unity, many inconveniences and stumbling- 
blocks will exist among us, and many misconcep- 
tions on either side and misrepresentations will 
arise, as also your venerable Committee sets forth 
in its report sent us ; but mutual patience and for- 
bearance, enkindled and enflamed by Christian 
love, and by the inestimable importance of the 
great and God-pleasing object at which we aim, can 
remove all such. We consider, then, as efficient to- 
wards the longed-for unity, and foreboding auspi- 
cious things, such manifestations of brotherly sen- 
timents in Christ and of tendencies to fellowship to- 
wards the strengthening and nourishtug of the ex- 
isting good relations between the Orthodox Church 
and your own, and also investigations and discus- 
sion in brotherly love, such as, on the happy 
occasion of the consecration of the Orthodox 
Church in Liverpool, the conference and discussion 
between the revered Archbishop of Syra and Tenos, 
our beloved brother in Christ, Alexander Lycurgus, 
and the Bishop of Ely and those with him. 

But, toward a firmer and surer attaining of what 
is desired, there seems to us, speaking for ourselves, 
needful the organization of a committee to this end, 
from either part, of skilled and well-instructed 
theologians, for the examination and accurate en- 
quiry into existing differences on the basis of the 
Catholic Orthodox Church before the Great Schism, 
for thus the mutual relations of sympathy are 
bound together more closely by a nearer mutual 
fellowship and acquaintance between the two 
Chm-ches, and we come with greater spirit and 
more safety to those things which concern catholic 
unity. For the speedy organization of such a com- 
mittee, on the part also of the Orthodox Church of 
the East, we both pray and hope. 

On this happy occasion, it seems to us superflu- 
ous to tell your most beloved Reverence, and 
through you the whole Church of the United States 
of America, of the great longing with which we 
have ever been enflamed to see one day completed 
the great work of unity, and, on account of this, 
from the time that by the divine mercy we received 



331 



three years since the spiritual presidency of the 
most holy Church of Alexandria, we have never 
omitted to direct the priests subject to our Patri- 
archal and Apostolic thi-one that, if any menibei-s of 
the Anglican Chm'ch should depart this life within 
the city or district committed to their charge, when 
called upon they should freely go to attend to them, 
and render the proper rites. 

Concerning the extension of this beginning of the 
burial of Anglicans by Orthodox priests, and vice 
versa, to Baptism, Marriage, and the Holy Com- 
munion, we speak our private opinion that it is nec- 
essary conceniing this that there should first be a 
distinct request from the Archbishop of Canterbm-y, 
as in the case of bm'ial, and then all the Patriarchs 
considering it together can give their answer in 
common. For the Orthodox Church having once 
decided any part of its Dogma or Canon, no partic- 
ular Church in the Orthodox Communion can ever, 
by itself, and of its own judgment, change or trans- 
gress anything of what is settled, however small a 
thing it may be. 

Finally giving the blessing of Peace in Christ to 
the Holy Chui'ch of the United States of America, 
and especially om^ Church prayers and blessings to 
yom- most wise Reverence, we pray that " the God 
of Peace, which brought again from the dead our 
Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheei3, through 
the blood of the everlasting covenant make you " 
all "perfect in every good work to do His "will, 
making in you that which is well pleasing in His 
sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for 
ever and ever. Amen." 

Of your esteemed Reverence the fervent and ear- 
nest well-wisher in Christ, 

•i«SoPHRONius of Alexandria. 

Alexandria, April 20, 1873. 



HiEROTHEUS, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of 
the great Divine city Antioch, and of all the East. 

To the Most Reverend Charles R. Hale, Presbyter 
of the Church of St. John, Auburn, New York," our 
Patriarchal and Apostolic blessing in Christ Jesus 
our Saviour. 

The most valued letter of your Reverence, and 
the copy of the three resolutions of the Joint Com- 
mittee, Bishops, Presbyters and Laymen, adopted 
in the great Synod of the Church of the United 
States of America, the 12th — 24th of the month of 
October, 1871, with the report of the correspondence 
which passed the three preceding years between the 
most holy authorities of the Russo-Greek Chm'ch 
and those of the Anglican Communion, we have re- 
cently received, and with great interest have read 
what is decreed in the aforementioned resolutions, 
and more especially what is said concerning mak- 
ing enquiry as to friendly relations with the Holy 
Eastern Orthodox Church , and the taking ' ' further 
steps for the communication of such information as 
may be mutually important and interesting to this 
Church and to the Holy Orthodox Church of the 
East. 

Considering with attention what has been written 
on both sides, we rejoiced at the brotherly kindness 
and peacefulness of the great aim of the fellowship 
between the Churches through friendly writings 
and deeds of true brotherliness and kindness. For 
truly our Saviour through the Holy Gospels and the 
Epistles bids us "love one another" and " bear one 
another's burdens, " that so may be fulfilled the law 
of God. For love is both that which draws together 
things divided, and strengthens all human fellow- 
ships, and prepares for bliss in respect to both. So 
Christian teaching and philosophy being beneficent, 
philanthropic and inclined to fellowship, the Ortho- 
dox Eastern Church, steadfast on these Godlike 
principles, continually prays " for the union of all " 
in the conf esion of the faith, never overlooking any 



[ peaceful occasion for consultation and discussion 
with all nations of the earth concerning love one 

I towards another, praying that "all may be one" 
(St. John, chap, xvti, 21), in Christ Jesus the Sav- 

! iour of all, and that with one heart we may glorify 
His blessed name. 

On account of these things, what has been re- 
solved by the Great Synod of the United States of 
America has been a cause of heartfelt joy to us, 
concerning fellowship with the Orthodox Eastern 

[ Church in brotherly love, whose pure results prom- 
ise the greatest moral benefit to each Church. 

I Wherefore responding thus by this present letter 

j we ask your Reverence to report these things also 

I to the Great SjTiod of the United States. Now may 
the grace of our Lord Jesus Chi-ist and our Patri- 
archal blessing be with yom- dear Reverence. 
Given in Damascus, March 10, 1873, the first year of 
the Indiction. 

►f. HiEROTHEUS of Antioch, 

Your brother in Christ. 



REMARKS OF REV. DR LEEDS OF MARY- 
LAND UPON THE CANON OF RITUAL. 

October 26, 1874. 
The House of Deputies, having taken up the Ca- 
! non of Ritual reported by the Committee on Ca- 
j nons — 

[ Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. Mr. President, 
Rome, it is said, has a place for every man and a 

i field for every form of enthusiasm. She erects an 

I order, she appoints a mission, or she allows a retreat, 
in which earnest and oftentimes extravagant na- 
tures may find free play for their impulses. She 
can gratify their feelings by setting them off to them- 
selves. But RomCjlje it"noted, consents to no departure 
from her settled standards of belief — no measure of 
compromise that would endanger her doctiine— how- 
ever much she may yield to peculiarities of taste and 

1 of temperament. 

Taste and temperament, Mr. President, sometimes 
make a demand which has no better ground to rest 
upon than a germinant error in theology. Souls 
crave a gratification for some spiritual yearning 

1 that is awakened in them, perhaps by a false view 
of truth. They have brought logic to bear upon 

! spiritual mystery, and have drawn conclusions from 
its sphere with the very same confidence with which 

1 they are wont to draw them from that of measur- 
able and definable facts. For instance, in the oflace 
of the Holy Eucharist, Because, imder the forms 
of bread and wine, there is a communication to the 
faithful of Chi ist's Body and Blood, therefore logic 
infers that the whole glorified Person of Jesus is so 
associated with the elements in, with, or about them, 
not locally, it is claimed, but mystically and in truth, 
that, under their veil. He ought devoutly to be 
adored. Therefore the elevation of the elements 

j after the consecrating rite. Therefore the impulse 
of piety to address its homage in their direction and 

t to express it in act — ^the denial of which impulse is, 

[ by those who feel it, held to be sacrilege. Admit 

I the theology to be correct which underlies this no- 

i tion, and their remonstrance is just. 

Now, sir, I deny the legitimacy of the conclusion 

, that is thus logically drawn. 

I Its unsoundness is shown in that it can claim no 
; coimtenance from the Word of God, or from the 
i structure of Primitive Liturgies. Even Mr. Keble, 
! being witness, no direction is to be found in the 
I earhest formularies of devotion to address wor- 
; ship in the sacrament to the Body and Blood of 
the Lord. In the Liturgies of the East to-day, not- 
withstanding the inroad of corruption, it cannot be 
claimed to have found, except constructively, a 
place. I have seen in Damascus, where the Greek 



332 



Church is as debased as anywhere in the world, the 

elements brought from the pro thesis before the act 
of consecration — after being offered, as with us, in 
the shape of " oblations" — and, as the deacon bearing 
the paten, revei-ently lifted above his head, followed 
by the priest with the chalice in his hands, made the 
circuit to the altar, the people fell prostrate upon 
their faces to the floor, in reverent worship. The 
Eastern mind is imaginative ; almost every action 
in Oriental worship is symbolical to its eye. The 
prostrate people before the elements, as the same are 
carried forward to the altar, see as in a figure the 
Saviour of the world proceeding to His cross. 
Hence their adoration of Himself in tj^ical repre- 
sentation. When the sacrifice of commemoration 
is duly completed, they bow again in lowly homage, 
but not so emphatically as before. The consecrated 
symbols are not at that moment presented to them 
for worship. They are actually screened from their 
view behind the Eikonostosis, and when, later in 
the service, the central gates are thrown open, and 
the symbols are exhibited in the middle of the great 
entrance, worship is again expressed, but not so 
markedly as either in the first instance or the se- 
cond. I infer from this, Mr. President, that the 
doctrine of Eucharistic adoration, so distinctively 
called, is not intended to be set forth in the Litur- 
gies of the East. It came in as an after-thought 
tkrough the Romanizing error of the Council of 
Bethlehem. No changes in the Rubrics or usages 
followed that Council. Hence the glaring incongru- 
ity, often brought to notice. Hence the manifest 
mark of innovation in the doctrinal ruling of Beth- 
lehem in 1672. 

I object again to the legitimacy of the conclusion 
that is drawn by logical processes touching the call 
for adoration toward the sacred symbols, because, 
in the writings of the Fathers, there is hardly an al- 
lusion in its favor. Out of all the discussion upon 
the Eucharist in which the Fathers abound, the Ho- 
milies that enforce its privilege, and the Catechisms 
that explain it, barely half a score of passages can 
be adduced that help to support it. In comparison 
with the treatises that present a view of the sacra- 
ment totally different in kind, they are not worthy 
of consideration. The value of these passages, it is 
urged, lies in the testimony they furnish to adora- 
tion as a practice; against which, however, the 
Liturgies of antiquity are a damaging witness. 

I object, once more, to the conclusion thus arrived 
at, because with hardly an exception the great 
Divines of our Church, from the Reformation down- 
ward, have ignored or rejected it. If Bishop An- 
drews, very doubtfully, and Prebendary Thorndike, 
beyond aU dispute, may be called its advocates, 
there are few others to be mentioned who make any 
approach to its approval. On the contrary, the 
teaching of the long catena of our doctors is in 
quite another direction. 

It is only in our day that a formal treatise upon 
this topic has appeared in the Anglican Church, 
from a pen dear for its associations with the poetry 
of the Christian year. For the first time in history, 
either before or since the Middle Ages, as far as one 
can discover, a school has been formed to set up and 
to propagate this theological tenet— a school ear- 
nest, enthusiastic, determined, aggressive, all alert 
and aglow. "Why not give license to this view of 
the Eucharist ? Why not let it be taught with 
freedom in esoteric circles ? Why not provide its 
advocates with an order of their own, or consign 
its teaching to some safe retreat ? Because, as a 
tenet, it is no longer an individual and exceptional 
opinion, gleaming out at rare intervals hi the long 
stretches of history; a sentiment, a private view, 
a sort of faith before God kept to one's self; a 
thing that, if held to by pious Bishop Andrews, did 
not appear in his prayers ; or, if embraced by learned 



Thorndike, did not offend against custom ; but 
taking on form, organization, equipment, power, 
it tlireatens at this time to change the very com- 
plexion of our formularies and engraft upon them 
a new and foreign idea; and as the Eucharistic 
rite is the grand central service of our holy reli- 
gion, to alter through that the whole tone and color 
of every subordinate ofiice. 

I am grateful, for my own part, for whatever in 
any way helps to elevate the Eucharist 
to a more devout observance, and in- 
vests its administration with additional 
sanctity. I thankfully recognize the endeavor to 
bring more impressively before us, in the service of 
this altar, the intercession and suffering of Him 
who always in the Apocalypse is set forth under the 
figure of "a Lamb, as it had been slain." I am glad 
of the attempt to make us see in the Holy Com- 
munion the representation, as in memory, and the 
presentation, as in merit, of the one only Sacrifice 
finished upon the Cross, glassed forth, as it were, in 
the commemorative act, in which our Saviour comes 
near to us by His Word and Spirit, to offer Him- 
self to our faith, in His broken Body and His Blood 
once shed. Further than this in my acknowledg- 
ments I cannot go. Beyond this in my views I dare 
not advance. But the dem^and is, Go further. I am 
pushed forward to the admission of a Theophony 
here present of nothing less than a symbol, corre- 
sponding to the pillar of cloud and of fire, to indi- 
cate to me that God is manifest — a presence of J esus 
veiled under visible signs : whereas in the place of 
ever7,^ sort of symbol I am taught by the ISTew Testa- 
ment that I have the reahty itself of Divine Ap- 
pearance, and not simply the token in the Person of 
the invisible, all-surrounding, ever-abiding Com- 
forter. 

It is to meet and arrest this school of doctrine, 
not in harshness and intolerance, but with sober 
judgment, as guardians of tru.th and conservators 
of the heritage to which our children have a title, 
that we are called to legislate. I am sorry for the 
occasion. I wish it could have been averted, espe- 
cially in the way of legal repression. I am in favor 
of law, but law positive, affirmative, authorizing 
and permitting, the absence or uncertainty of 
which has given no little apology to present irreg- 
ularities. 

As a temporary and imperfect expedient, a Canon 
is proposed. It is of the nature of a compromise. 
Imperfect, I said, because in the Court of Appellate 
Jurisdiction it leaves open to every diversity and 
contrariety of rule that can be found in as many 
different tribunals as may be called upon to admin- 
ister it. Temporary it must be, for the only com- 
petent authority by which this Church can abide is 
that which, first ascertained after a careful study of 
law, both written and unwritten, and then sup- 
plemented by her Synods wherever it is wanting, 
shall be adjudged to be law by solemn judicial 
decisions. Meanwhile, this Canon of Ritual 
provides for the erection of an Ecclesias- 
tical Court, by which offenders may be 
arrested, put on trial to answer, and made amenable 
to control. It is to be hoped that such an appoint- 
ment as this will operate as a caution, and leave 
httle more to do in the way of restraint. 

I shaU not analyze this Canon. I leave that to 
others. I will simply remark that it forbids a few 
practices, about two or three of which there will be 
a difference of opinion. 

For example, the use of Incense : As a symbol, it 
may be innocent and expressive. It is its ritual 
use that is forbidden, which is identified with a pur- 
pose that this Church would rebuke. The Ritual 
Commission of the Lower House of Convocation in 
1866 declared that the burning of incense had been 
practised from the Reformation onward to within 



333 



a hundred, yes, fifty years, in cathedrals and cha- 
pels, collegiate, royal, and private, of the British do- 
minions. Its object in such cases was i-everence or 
festivity. The godly Bishop of AVinchester, among 
the furiii>hings of his chapel, had a triquetral cen- 
sei-, on which incense was placed by the clerk when 
the first lesson of Holy Scripture was on the point 
of being read. It was for a token of awe and vene- 
ration as God was about to sj^eak. 

Good George Herbei-t wrote in his " Country 
Pastor" how careful the priests ought to be 
on occasions of festivals to perfume witi:i sweet odors 
the House of the Lord. This was of the natm-e as Mr. 
Scudamore has told us, of a floral decoration or fes- 
tive embellishment. 

Incense properly signifies the merit of Christ, 
with which, as the Angel of the Covenant, He offers 
the prayers of His Saints upon the altar in heaven. 
There is, therefore, in its burning, no necessarily 
• dangerous doctrine or sentiment implied ; but its 
obiectiouableuess arises from the fact of its illegali- 
ty, and its intended connection with " Eucharistic 
Adoration." 

The same may be said of the Crucifix — constantly 
used by the Lutherans, and appointed to be placed 
upon their Holy Table on every occasion of sacra- 
mental service. Yet the crucifix is so associated 
with superstition and corruption, that in the minds 
of most people it is difficuJt to put them apart. 1 
need not remark upon Elevations of the Elements, 
and genuflections and bowings, for they speak 
for themselves, and are only forbidden be- 
cause they are avowedly practised for the wor- 
ship of our Saviour, under the symbols of bread and 
wine. 

Now, there are objections that will be made to 
any and every Canon that is proposed for enact- 
ment. Indeed, to all legislation, whatever its 
form, there will be opposition ; and in passing to 
consider, as I think it but fair to do, some of these 
objections, I would be understood to meet them, 
not as applying to this Canon before us so much as 
to law in general that is intended to govern us in 
matters of P^itual. I defer the question of the con- 
stitutionality of Canonical regulations to another 
occasion. 

But among objections, Mr. President, I might 
speak, in the tii'st place, of the earnest longing I have 
alluded to for Eucharistic Adoration, that must of 
necessity be denied under a strictei* legislation. I 
need only observe, in addition to what I have said, 
that the term "Eucharistic Adoration" is a mis- 
leading term. We are never forbidden to adore 
our Redeemer in His Supper, both as seated on His 
throne and as present with us in its reception. 
" Sursam corda " is the key-note of grateful though 
lowly ascriptions. Our adoration must be di- 
rected, like that of the Disciples at the Passover, 
to the Consecrating Priest, our Saviour, and not to 
the Elements under His sacred hands. 

But again : it is objected to be unfair 
to men who have entered into the Church, 
and especially to those who have taken 
Holy Orders— understanding that the Prayer- 
Bo ok should remain as it is if any new res-trictions 
and limitations are to be put upon its meaning. In 
answer to which objection, it may very properly 
be replied that the Pra^-er-Book has been subjected 
on several occasions before to the work of revision — 
sometimes to eliminate what had become liable to 
abuse, and sometimes to restore after such danger had 
passed. In every revision the preservation and per- 
petuity of sound doctrine in its integrity have never 
been overlooked. Changes have been jealouslyi'efused 
where the faith has been concerned, and they will 
continue to be so, the only object of legislation being 
to maintain the Offices just as they are, and to pre- 
vent alteration by indirection in rites. Prebendary 



Thomdike said two centuries ago that " Eucharistic 
Adoration " could be rightfully practised when it 
came to be a custom. To forestall such custom, 
which may creep insidiously in. Canons like that 
before us have come to be necessary. The sooner men 
are stopped by the positive voice of the Church, 
who enter into her ministry expecting to teach and 
to practise that which she inhibits, the better. 

A third objection is interposed — that the times are 
not meet for wise and wholesome enactment. Such 
is the irritation, such the want of intelligence, so 
few are familiar with Rompotes, Dm-andus, Pugin, 
and other writers on Ritual — the stage we have reach- 
ed in om- history as a Church is so wholl5^ transitional, 
unsettled, and tentative — we are not prepared, it is 
argued, for a judicious regulation of pubUc wor- 
ship. I answer that a state of development and 

Erogress may be looked for for long years to come ; 
ut with the changes that are coming there may 
quite as easily occur variations for the worse as 
variations for the better. I do not believe 
there is the ignorance which is complained of. I am 
decidedly of the opinion that an intelligent corn- 
mission can be chosen that, in the calm of their 
studies and in the course of three years, 
will be able to report to us, as the result 
of their labors, such ecclesiastical provisions 
touching matters of Ritual as, while settling and 
conserving the doctrine of the Church, wall more 
effectually set forward a lively and significant wor- 
ship, than any number of experiments in individual 
cases unguided and unendorsed. 

A fourth objection appears in the dread of a tame 
and monotonous imiformity, to which the Church 
wiU be reduced, and the repression of all enthusi- 
asm in her schools of thought. If diversities in 
temperament and taste were to be denied freedom, 
if no allowances were to be made of the grand 
minster rite side by side with the simplicity of the 
humble chapel, if details in ministration to every 
minutia of service were to be prescribed and en- 
forced for all places and peoples, then certainly this 
objection would have great weight, and it would 
deserve to have it. But the purpose, I submit, of 
aU Ritual regulation is only to debar such features 
in worship as are incompatible with oneness in the 
common system set up, and to prevent controversy 
and antagonism of appearance. Variety, not incon- 
sistent with unity, must be permitted no less in the 
I Kingdom of Grace than in the Kingdom of Nature. 
I A little more or a little less of fsesthetical element, a 
j richer or a plainer, a more elaborate or a simpler 
■ type in the ministrations of the sanctuary, provided 
I the Church orders it, and spirituality is not hin- 
dered, is not to be ruled out by any judicious legis- 
lation. Much less are schools of thought to be put 
into confinement and bondage. It is not sought, and 
it never can be sought, to make all men exactly 
[ alike. The interplay of diversities is the health of the 
Church. To every school in its measure the Church is 
I under obligation — to the High for the maintenance 
[ of Apostolic order and truth, to the Low for point- 
' ing to spirituality of life, to the Broad for adjusting 
j relations with science and a more general culture, to 
! the Ritual for quickened service in worship and in 
' charity. To all of them, as a whole, the Church 
can own herself a debtor, and make large allowances 
: in their favor, if they oiily be loyal. As the Bishop 
i of Lichfield very beautifully told us in his sermon 
in Baltimore, the advanced guard of an army 
I may skirmish continually in the front, if it only 
: return promptly at the call of the bugle. 
' But I must not detain this Convention, except to 
remark that the most grievous objection alleged 
against the enactment of either Rubrics or Canons 
in regulation of Ritual is, that law is cold and un- 
j pitying in its sway. Yes, law in itself is unpitying 
and cold. "The letter always killeth." But law, 



334 



after all, is the protection of liberty, and there is 
no true freedom or security in the want of it. The 
privileges of the subject are guarded against in- 
vasion by the very statute that arms and no less 
restrains the governor. You must defend the rights 
of the clergy by erecting over them an elastic and 
generous, though definite rule, while at the same 
time you protect the Church by upholding author- 
ity. 

Law, Mr. President and gentlemen, can never be 
dispensed with. It is the guardian of order and 
peace — "the harmony of the universe." The dew- 
drop falls silently into its place under its direction, 
and the wild sweep of the storm is obedient to its 
sovereign control. Law under the New Covenant is 
no less binding in its moral prescriptions than it was 
under the Old ; and the only difference in its action 
under the two systems is that in the latter it is ac- 
commodated to human infirmity. In other words, 
it is administered as all law in the Church ever 
should be administered — with kindness. He who 
came into the world to restore men to rectitude, 
and make aU righteous, threw His cloak over the 
sinner. The life of Jesus was charity, and this 
should be the hfe of His Church. Grievances 
against His precept, and therefore against Him- 
self, He forgave. 

' ' Men write their wrongs in marble ; He, more just, 
Stooped down and wrote them in the dust." 

The first footfall blotted out their record— the 
faintest breath of the wind confused and obscured 
it. 

Mr. President, it has been well observed that 
"the soft pillow sooner breaks the stone than the 
hardest marble." And the reason is this : That the 
pillow, yielding, gives the full force of the blow to 
the stone which is smitten, which otherwise it 
would divide by taking a part of it to itself. 

The Bishop, to be a Bishop, must be gentle, con- 
siderate, meek, patient, and skilled to teach. The 
man who can be touched with a feeling of an- 
other's weakness, who himself has done amiss 
or strayed away, it may be, to the confines 
of error, is sometimes best qualified, if 
repentant, for the high and holy vocation of 
watching over his brethren. His own experiences 
prove his ripest qualification. The gentleness in 
some men of their mother's blood in their veins, or 
the chivalry of their father's spirit in their breasts, 
leads them always to interpose for persons in error ; 
more to rescue than to punish, more to influence 
them for the better than to drive them to the worse. 
A manly sympathy, wedded to a manly adhesion to 
duty, looks well to see if it cannot possibly effect 
by the former what it is bound in conscience to 
accomplish by the latter. The feeling, perhaps, that 
in new adjustments and relations, with new checks 
brought to bear upon an offending party, he may 
avoid past faults, compels many a noble spirit to 
generous suffrages towards him. 

This is the kind of temper which, in a true father 
of his flock, will save law from becoming cruel. 
The secret of all right government is power tem- 
pered with charity, and guided with sound discre- 
tion. 

A Bishop wiU endeavor to put himself into rela- 
tion to all of his clergy in a way to do justice to 
them and no injustice to the Church. Your storied 
windows are only daubs and patches when seen 
from without. They must be looked at from within. 
There is always some point of sight from which the 
well-meaning, though it may be perverse, con- 
clusions of another may be considered with 
candor ; and where falsehood and heresy do not 
stand in the way, the chief pastor of a diocese will 
endeavor to get at it— not to compromise, but to gain 
influence and to recover. 



A Bishop now no more of earth — one of the 

wisest this Church has ever known — used to employ 
the leading men of a party to restrain and to correct 
its less sober members. I have known a Bishop — 
still among the living — who, on the point of making 
public his condemnation of certain practices in a 
particular congregation which he despaired of cor- 
recting in a more private way, gladly accepted the 
interposition of one of his presbyters, who ap- 
proached the rector of the congregation complained 
of, and, after long closeting and comparison of 
view, succeeded in obtaining his consent to every 
change which had been demanded by the Bishop. 
And not only so, but the effect of that interview 
was to elicit an expression of thanks from the 
clergyman for the gift of new light and for kindly 
dealing. 

Law comes to bear on men, where it is not de- 
fiantly treated, through a fatherly and brotherly 
ministration. 

It is in this way that the Church expects it — 
always expects it — to operate. It is not meant for 
oppression and bondage. It is the Bishop's guide 
and support when called to administer discipline, 
and it is equally the segis of both clergy and 
people against possible injustice ; but most cer- 
tainly, at all times, under any wise government, 
the precept of a loving though faithful shepherd. 

In this persuasion, Mr. President, I wish to record 
my vote in favor of the Canon now presented to 
this House ; and, being called from the city by pas- 
toral engagements I cannot fail to meet, I shall, in 
the event of final action upon this action during my 
absence, ask the privilege of so doing upon my re- 
tm-n. 



TWENTY-SECOND DAY. 

Saturday, October 31. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
- nine a.m. 

Morning Prayer was said to the Creed by Rev. J. 
H. Knowles, Canon of the Cathedral, Chicago, 111. 
The Creed and Prayers were said by Rev. Archi- 
bald Beatty, of Kansas. The Benediction was pro- 
nounced by Rev. J. H. Knowles. of Illinois. 

SPANISH TRANSLATION OF PRAYER-BOOK. 

The PRESIDENT appointed as the Committee on 
the Spanish Translation of the Prayer-Book, Rev. 
W. D. Wilson, D.D., LLD., Charles R. Hale, M.A., 
Henry Coffee, ll.d., and Professor F. Fred. Crane, 

M.A. 

TRUSTEES OF THEOLOGICAL, SEMINARY, 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I ask general 
consent for the introduction of a resolution that I 
deem to be exceedingly important, and the House 
of Bishops are desirous of getting it to-day, if pos- 
sible : 

"Whereas, Under existing laws the number of 
Trustees of the General Theological Seminary has 
become so large as to interfere with thorough effi- 
ciency in its government ; therefore, 

"Resolved (the Plouse of Bishops concurring). 
That a commission, composed of two Bishops, two 
Clerical and two Lay Deputies, be appointed to con- 
sider what legi||lation may be necessary to enable 
the Trustees to govern the Seminary with increased 
efficiency, and to report to the General Convention 
at its next session ; said commission having power 
to confer with the several Dioceses having an inter- 
est in the Seminary, and to take such other action 
as may be necessary to perfect the plan or plans 
that the Commission may desire to propose to the 
General Convention." 

There are now three hundred and sixty Trustees, 
and by and by they will get up to a thousand, and 



335 



this is a mere proposition to appoint a commission 
to enquire. I move that the resolution be adopted. 

Leave was granted to inti-oduce the resolution, and 
it was adopted. 

THE NEW HYMNAL. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would ask 
unanimous consent to a resolution to concur in the 
message of the House of Bishops (No. 73), sent in 
last evening, about the Hymnal, which, as I under- 
stand, is to take oft" the title-page the words in refer- 
ence to the action of the last Convention, and put 
in what we all agreed to. The main point, however, 
the direction in regard to music, is put in as a Ca- 
non. I ask mianimous consent to a resolution to 
now concur in that message. The Trustees want to 
go right on and print the book, and I am afraid we 
shall lose it in the pressure of business. 

The message was concurred in. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York, submitted the 
following resolution, which was agreed to : 

"Whereas, The New York Bible and Common 
Prayer-Book Society having provided for the publi- 
cation of an edition of the standard Prayer-Book as 
set forth by the House of Bishops and the House of 
Clerical and Lay Deputies, at the meeting of the 
General Convention in 1871, without any expense 
whatever to the Church, and 

"Whereas, We understand that the issue of this 
Book by said Society involved an outlay of over 
five thousand dollars, thus precluding the possibility 
of its being published as a business venture of any 
publishing house. Therefore, 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That we hereby recognize this act of great liberal- 
ity on the part of the New York Bible and Common 
Prayer-Book Society, and express our thanks there- 
for." 

BELIEF FUND, 

Rev. Dr. SHELTON, of Western New York, 
from the Committee to nominate trustees of the 
fund for the relief of widows and orphans of de- 
ceased clergymen, and of aged, infirm, and disa- 
bled clergymen, reported the following names as 
trustees : 

The Bishop of Delaware, the Bishop of Easton, 
Rev. H. C. Potter, d.d,, Rev. Morgan Dix, d.d., 
Stephen P. Nash, Esq., Wm. Alexander Smith, 
Esq., and Lloyd W. Wells, Esq. 

The nominations were confirmed. 

GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The nomination 
of Trustees of the General Theological Seminary 
was suspended the other day on my motion. I 
move now that that resolution be taken from the 
Calendar for the purpose of action. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the resolu- 
tion reported by the Committee on the General 
Theological Seminary was adopted as follows : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the Trustees named in the accompanying list 
be confirmed as members of the Board of the Gene- 
ral Theological Seminary for the next three years." 

ILLNESS OF REV. DR. D. R. GOODWIN. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. If it is in 
order I should like to say a word of explanation in 
^ reference to a question of privilege. Yesterday or 
the day before, one of the speakers referring to a 
Deputy from the Diocese of Pennsylvania, who is 
absent, and speaking of him by name (Rev. Dr. 
Goodwin), referred to the fact that he was unable 
to be present in this Convention on account of ill 
health, and he used the phrase that his present sick- 
ness was the beginning of the end. I wish, in be- 
half of the Rev. Dr. Goodwin, to correct any im- 
pression which this might give rise to. The Reve- 
rend Deputy from Pennsylvania has been prevented 



I from attendance here by sickness ; but he is in tla^ 
I way, as he believes, and as his physicians inform 
him, of a perfect restoration to health. I wish to 
correct the impression, and I would like the fact to 
appear, if possible, in some way, on the records of 
the Convention. 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. I made the 
\ remark. I was misinformed by some of his friends, 
and I regret that they did not rise at the time to 
correct me. I have had the correction made in the 
printed report, and I have also written to Dr. Good- 
win. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not think that it could 
possibly appear on the records of the Convention. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I suppose 
not ; but it will appear in the printed report of our 
proceedings. 

LEAVES OF ABSENCE. 

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the Com- 
mittee on Elections, reported that leave of absence 
for the remainder of the session had been granted to 
Rev. Mr. Goodale, of Nebraska; Rev. Mr. Hotch- 
kin, of Delaware ; Rev. Dr. Humes, of Tennessee ; 
Rev. Dr. Hutton, of Maryland ; Mr. Parker, of Vir- 
ginia; Mr. Bodley, of Missouri ; Mr. Meads, of Al- 
bany; Mr. Jackson, of Maine; Mr. Churchill, of 
Kentucky; and Mr. Curtis, of Delaware. 

TIME OF FINAL ADJOURNMENT. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I wish to ask whether 
it be in order to move a resolution in regard to the 
adjournment, with a view to testing the judgment 
of this House as to the time of final adjournment. 
It is well-known that on Tuesday next many of the 
members of this House will necessarily be absent, a 
large number of them on account of the elections 
taking place in this State and some of the adjoining 
States. We shall then have been four weeks in 
session, and it will be almost impossible for many 
of the delegations to be longer represented here. It 
seems to me that if it be possible for us to close our 
business on Monday, it would be very desirable that 
it should be known in advance at what time we 
shall eventually adjourn. With a view, not of an- 
ticipating the judgment of this House, but of bring- 
ing out its view on that subject, I offer a resolu- 
tion that this House will adjourn, the House of 
Bishops concurring, on Monday next. 

Several Deputies. At what hour ? 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. Say at two o'clock, so 
as to enable members who deem it necessary to go 
home to reach their homes by Tuesday. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I ask the gentle- 
man whether he is willing to stay here until four 
o'clock to-day ? They will give us the church until 
four, but if we go oif at two o'clock we shall lose 
two hours. If the gentleman is in earnest — 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I am in earnest. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Then let us stay 
until four o'clock to-day. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I have made the motion 
that we adjourn at two o'clock on Monday next, if 
the House of Bishops concur; and I made that 
motion with the view of bringing out the sense of 
the House on the subject. Very few of the delega- 
tions will be full after Monday. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I second the mo- 
tion, with the understanding that we shall remain in 
session as long as we can to-day, and do all the busi- 
ness we can. 

Mr. STARK, of Connecticut. I move to amend 
the resolution of the Deputy from Albany by strik- 
ing out "Monday," and inserting "Tuesday." I 
make this motion because I am thoroughly satisfied 
that we cannot keep the larger portion of the body 
together after Tuesday to transact business, and 
those who necessarily go away to-day will not re- 



33(? 



turn early enough on Monday to transact business 
that day with that order and deliberation which 
ought to characterize the proceedings of this House. 
If we fix the time for Tuesday, two o'clock, we shall 
have all day Monday and Monday evening. I ex- 
press my own personal feelings about the matter 
by my amendment. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I beg to say to the 
gentleman that his amendment would defeat the 
object of the greater part of the persons who wish 
to go away. We have five Dioceses in this State 
represented. Their Deputies want to go home to 
vote on Tuesday, and they must leave here on Mon- 
day to enable them to do so. Elections take place 
in other States besides this, and the same thing 
occurs. 

Mr. DE ROSSETT, of North Carolina. I move to 
refer this matter to the Joint Committee on Closing 
Exercises. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. Perhaps we might close 
our business on Monday at two o'clock ; but an 
extension of time would be required to hear the 
pastoral letter, but that would not require the at- 
tendance of members here for business. Of 
course we would comply with all that was courteous 
to the House of Bishops in respect to hearing the 
Pastoral Letter ; but I want it understood that our 
business shall close on Monday immediately after 
lunch. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. Make it five 
o'clock. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. If that is not 
done, we shall have very poor legislation, for there 
are a great many men from the West who will go 
whether or not, and if there is only a quorum left 
there may be very poor legislation. 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I am sure this House 
would be unwilling to do anything of that Idnd. I 
think we may trust the propriety of members of 
this House not to act on important business when 
nearly all the members are absent. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Of course 
they will not ; but I have known one of the best 
Canons we had to be run out just precisely at the 
end of the session,_because of an absence of men. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. It seems to 
me, even if we have a quorum, there will be gentle- 
men representing Dioceses who would want to be 
present. You may a^ree on the legislation that 
they would oppose with all their power if they 
were here. If you are only going to act on matters 
of mere form, a bare quorum would be sufiicient. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. What is the 
question 'i 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
of Mr. Meads as amended by Mr. Stark, but I think 
the whole matter had better be referred to the 
Committee on the closing services of the Conven- 
tion, so that they may enquire and report to the 
House at the proper time. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move, then, 
that these two resolutions be referred to the Com- 
mittee to enquire and report at the earliest time. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would also 
suggest the propriety of the Committee reporting 
at the same time what are the important 
matters that must be considered, so as to get an idea 
of what must come up, and let us do those things 
before we scatter, because if there was only a quo- 
rum left no gentleman would aUow himself to 
press to a vote any important matter. I do not 
think it would be fair or right. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. That Committee 
will inform itself. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Had we not 
better get the sense of the House by voting on Mr. 
Meads' motion ? 

The PRESIDENT. Does Mr. Meads accept the 



suggestion of Mr. Welsh to refer the matter to the 
Committee on Closing Services, and let them report 
as soon as they can ? 

Mr. MEADS, of Albany, Very weU, with the 
understanding that they shall report this . morn- 
ing. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to refer the matter to the Committee on Closing 
Services. 

Mr. STARK, of Connecticut. Would it be not 
more orderly to lay the resolution on the table and 
call it up from the table when the Committee is 
prepared to report, it being understood that it is to 
lie there until that time i I move that the resolu- 
tion lie on the table for the present. 

The motion was agreed to. 

to-day's session. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Now I move 
that the House to-day remain in session until four 
o'clock. The Committee must know that we will 
do that before they report. If you go away at two 
o'clock to-day, we shall have to remain until Tues- 
day. 

The motion was agreed to. 

THE BAPTISMAL OFFICE. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Last night 
the House appointed eleven o'clock to-day for the 
consideration of the report on the Bptptismal Ru- 
bric. I propose that that order of the day be 
changed from eleven to two, in order to accommo- 
date the Committee on Constitutional Amend- 
ments. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I object, be- 
cause many members have to leave to-day to attend 
to their duties on Sunday, and this is too important 
a measure to be acted on in a thin House. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. When that subject 
went over by the interference of ano ther special 
order, I had become entitled to the floor, but the call- 
ing up of the other order prevented my saying any- 
thing on the subject. I desire to have what I say on 
that subject heard by as many of this body as it is 
possible to have ; and the reason given by the Cleri- 
cal Deputy from Maryland is a very sound one, in 
my judgment, that this afternoon a great many of 
the clergy will necessarily have gone home at the 
hour named, and therefore my remarks will fail to 
reach points that I think they ought to reach. For 
that reason I am opposed to the motion. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachoisetts, I did not 
suppose there would be any objection, but I with- 
draw the motion. 

CANON ON RITUAL. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. With the per- 
mission of the House, I ask leave to present the 
report of the Committee of Conference on the dis- 
agreement between the two Houses on the Ritual 
question. The Secretary will please read the re- 
port. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

' ' The Committee of Conference appointed by the 
two Houses to consider the diiferences between the 
House of Bishops and the House of Deputies in re- 
gard to the additional section to Canon 30, Title I., 
' Of the Use of the Book of Common Prayer, ' have ^ 
had the same under consideration, and recommend 
the adoption of the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That instead of the section as passed 
by the House of Deputies, and proposed to be 
amended by the House of Bishops, the following 
additional section be added to Canon 20, of Title I., 
' Of the Use of the Book of Common Prayer ' : 

" Sec. 2. [1.] If any Bishop have reason to believe, 
or if complaint be made to him in writing by two 
or more of his Presbyters, that within his jurisdic- 



337 



tion ceremonies or practices not ordained or author- 
ized iu the Book of Common Prayer, and setting 
forth erroneous or doubtful doctrines, have been in- 
troduced by any minister during the celebration of 
the Holy Communion, such as — 

"a. The Elevation of the Elements in the Holy 
Communion in such manner as to expose them to 
the view of the people as objects towards which 
adoration is to be made. 

" b. Any act of adoration of or toward the Ele- 
ments in the Holy Communion, such as bowings, 
prostrations or genuflections ; and, 

"c. All other lilie acts not authorized or allowed 
by the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer. 

"It shall be the duty of such Bishop to summon 
the Standing Committee as his Council of Advice, 
and Tvith them to investigate the matter. 

" [ 2. ] If after investigation it shall appear to the 
Bishop and Standing Coinmittee that ceremonies or 
practices not ordained or authorized as aforesaid, 
and setting forth or symbolizing erroneous or doubt- 
ful doctrines, have in fact been introduced as afore- 
said, it shall be the duty of the Bishop by instru- 
ment of writing under his hand to admonish the 
Minister so offending to discontinue such practices 
or ceremonies ; and if the minister shall disregard 
such admonition, it shall be the duty of the Stand- 
ing Committee to cause him to be tried for a breach 
of his ordination vow. Provided that nothing 
herein contained shall prevent the presentment, 
trial, and punishment of any minister under the 
provisions of Section 1, of Canon 2, Title II., of the 
Digest. 

" [3.] In aU investigations under the provisions of 
this Canon, the minister whose a^cts or practices are 
the subject-matter of the investigation shall be noti- 
fied, and have opportunity to be heard in his defense. 
The charges preferred and the findings of the Bishop 
and Standing Committee shall be in writing, and a 
record shall be kept of the proceedings in the case. 

"By order of the Committee on the part of the 
House of Bishops. 

"J. WILLIAMS, Chairman. 

"By order of the Committee on the part of the 
House of Deputies. 

"WILLIAM COOPER MEAD, Chairman." 

Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. I 
wish to call attention to one word under specifica- 
tion "c." It says " all acts. " I think grammar re- 
quires it to be " any act.'' 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The Committee 
on Canons proposed, inasmuch as this report by the 
Committees of Conference would be presented hi 
each House, that we take no action for the present 
upon the report made by om- Committee of Confer- 
ence, but await the action of the Bishops on the re- 
port of their Committee. That will give time for 
members of this House to examine this question 
and see exactly what the result of this Conference 
is. It is probable that the Canon, inasmuch as it 
received the unanimous approval of their Com- 
mittee, as it did also of • our own, will pass their 
House during the course of the day, and will 
come down to us by message dm'ing the day. It is 
so hoped ; and it is quite possible that when this 
matter is explained there will be no opposition on 
the part of this House to this report, and to the 
Canon which the Committee have reported, and it 
may go through, as I believe it will, unanimously, 
and we may close up this question during the 
course of the day. If, however, when the messag^e 
from the Bishops shall come down to this House, it 
be desirable that it shall he over for further investi- 

fation and examination, there will be no objection, 
presume, to making it the order of the day at any 
time on Monday morning, giving us the intei-ven- 
ing time to examine it. 
I have been requested, however, to state in a 



very few words what the sum and substance of this 
report is, so far as it differs from the Canon origin- 
ally passed by the House, and I am prepared to say 
that the only substantial change made in the Canon 
by the Committee of Conference is by striking out 
the first two specifications in the original Canon. 
Otherwise it remains substantially as it was when 
it passed this House. 
Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. Please state what 

Mr. BURGIYIN, of Pittsburgh. Incense, and the 
use of the crucifix: during the administration of the 
Holy Communion. The report which came from the 
House of Bishops, and the Canon as sent down to us 
by them, did make a very serious change. It altered 
entirely the whole scope and effect of the Canon. It 
altered it, as I believe, to a much greater extent 
than the Bishops intended to alter it. That, how- 
ever, is not important to be considered now. The 
result is, that we, by our joint committees, have re- 
stored the Canon to the same condition that it was 
in when it was presented originally by the Commit- 
tee on Canons of this House, \\i.th the exception 
of striking out the two first specifications. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. May I ask 
a question ? I would like the gentleman to inform 
us the reason for striking out those two specifica- 
tions. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. WeU, sir, the 
reason, as I imderstand it, of com^se depends upon 
the individual vote that was given. There were 
different reasons given. The chief reason was that 
the Canon, as it stood before the House origi- 
nally, was logically inconsistent with itself, 
inasmuch as it set forth that the use of 
incense and the use of the crucifix did 
set forth or symbolize false or doubtful doctrine. 
Some of each Committee were of opinion that that 
was in a sense true, and that they could consistently 
vote for it; but I understand that a majority of the 
House of Bishops would not vote for it, simply for 
that reason, because they could not conscientiously 
say that they considered the use of incense at any 
time dm-ing the services of the Church as symbolizing 
or setting forth a false doctrine, however objection- 
able it might be in itself, and however desirous they 
might be of forbidding its use. 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. I desire, sir, to 
understand fully whether this question will come 
back to this House after we have sent the report to 
the House of Bishops, for our final concurrence ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. If the Bishops dis- 
approve of the report of their Committee, then we 
shall know where we stand; but if they approve it, 
as I presume they will, they will send down the 
Canon, exactly word for word, as we have report- 
ed it, and it will then come before us simply on the 
question of concurrence. Therefore, it is not ne- 
cessary for us now to take any action on the report 
we have made, or on the Canon which we have pre- 
sented. 

Rev. Mr. BOLTON, of Pennsylvania. May I ask 
the question. Will it, therefore, be considered that it 
is lawful to use incense ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Not at all. On 
the contrary, the proviso to the Canon we report 
is to the eff'ect that any minister who does any act 
in violation of law may still be presented and tried 
under the provisions of Canon 2, Title II., leaving 
that as it was before. Y^e do not interfere with 
that ; we simply provide that where two Presby- 
ters, or the Bishop on his own motion, shall be of 
the opinion that acts or practices during the- cele- 
bration of the Holy Communion have been intro- 
duced, which set forth or symbolize false or doubtful 
doctrine, it shall be the duty of the Bishop and 
Standing Committee to make investigation, and if 
they find that such acts and practices have been in 



338 



troduced, to admonish the minister, and then if he 
still continues in their use, to have him tried for a 
breach of his ordination vows in so disregarding 
the admonition of his Bishop. 

Hev. Mr. BOLTON, of Pennsylvania. That is 
exactly what I supposed. 

Mr. BURG- WIN, of Pittsburgh. But, if the gen- 
tleman will permit me, with the proviso that no- 
thing in this Canon contained shall prevent that 
minister from being tried, and if found guilty disci- 
plined for any unlawful act which he may have com- 
mitted, no matter what it may have been; and if 
the use of incense is unlawful — that of course this 
Canon does not decide — but if in fact the use of in- 
cense be unlawful, then he may be tried for an im- 
lawful act just as Ijef ore. 

Rev. Mr. BOLTON, of Pennsylvania. But the 
conclusion the Committee come to is that the use of 
incense and the setting up of the crucifix do not 
teach or symbolize unsound doctrine, and that 
therefore they may be used. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. No, sir, not at 
all. 

Rev. Mr. MARPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
should like to ask whether there is not danger that 
the House of Bishops ai'e waiting for us to act while 
we are waiting for them to act ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. No, sir ; it was 
understood in the Committee of Conference last 
night, when we met, that such would be the course 
of action, and they expect to act on it immediately. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of Connecticut. I feel certain 
that this subject ought to be acted on to-day, while 
members are here. Many will go away to-day, and 
to-morrow being the first Sunday of the month, 
they will want to be in their parishes to administer 
the Holy Communion, and very many cannot get 
back here by Monday noon. What I want, and I 
believe this House wants, is that this subject come 
up and be disposed of to-day before one o'clock. 
Why should we wait for the House of Bishops to 
act { Why can we not act ourselves, and ti'ansmitthe 
Canon to them, and see whether they will confirm 
our action, as we have done on other subjects and as 
we did before on this? Why should we wait for 
them to act and transmit their action to us? I hope 
we shall proceed at once to act upon the report 
made by the Committee of Conference. 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I am decidedly 
of the opinion that that is the correct view to take, 
imless there is some hidden reason. 

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. There is certainly 
no objection on the part of the Committee to im- 
mediate action. It was only in deference to what 
we presumed would be the feeling of the House, not 
to act on so important a matter simply on a verbal 
report, without having an opportunity of seeing for 
themselves what these changes were, and verify 
wha,t I have stated in regard to the substantial 
elfect of the report. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
move that the message of the House of Bishops be 
amended so as to conform to the report of the Con- 
ference Committee, and be adopted by this House. 

Rev. Dr. LE WIN, of Maryland. I would amend 
by moving that the report of the Committee on 
Conference be adopted. 

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. If the feeling of 
the House be to act now, the proper motion would 
be to approve the report of the Committee of Confer- 
ence, and adopt the Canon which they have reported. 

Rev. Mr. BROWlM, of Michigan. Then I under- 
stand it goes to the House of Bishops, and if they 
concur that is the end of it. ["Yes."] If this vote 
is to be taken now, Michigan demands a vote by 
orders. 

Mr, KING, of Long Island. I can perceive a 
great difficulty in taking the vote at present. We 



had better await the action of the House of Bishops. 
If we pass this act now, it passes out of our hands 
altogether ; we have no control of it, and it might 
not pass the other House. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Allow me to say 
^ne woi'd in regard to the question of taking this 
vote by orders. I have good reason to believe that 
if it be put to a viva voce vote, there will not be a 
single dissenting voice in this House ; but if it were 
put to a vote by orders, there might be some nega- 
tives. 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. I appreciate 
that fact, but nevertheless, Michigan will demand a 
vote by orders in this case when it comes to the final 
vote. 

Rev. Dr. BROWN, of Albany. The delegation 
from Albany make the same demand. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I merely want to say one word in regard to 
the Canon as reported. There are some things in 
favor of it, and one thing against it. In the first 
place, it seems to me that the amendment which has 
been adopted by the Committee of Conference is a 
very va^hiable amendment, because it confines the 
Canon to the celebration of the Holy Communion, 
and requires tv/o facts to be proved with regard to 
the acts to be brought forward : First. That they 
symbolize erroneous or doubtful doctrines ; and. 
Second. That they are not authorized or ordained 
in the Book of Common Prayer. That, I hold, is 
the first change, and I regard it as a valuable one. 

In the next place, there are two specifications 
left out, which said that the use of incense and the 
use of the crucifix symbolized false doctrine. I 
hope the reverend gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will believe it when I say that nothing in this Canon 
possibly authorizes the use of incense or the use of 
the ci'ucifix. It leaves that just whei'e it was be- 
fore. If it was lawful before, it is lawful now ; if 
it was unlawful before, it is still unlawful. 

Rev. Mr. BOLTON, of Pennsylvania. That is 
just the trouble. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I want to 
say still further that I can understand how the 
House of Bishops might have made this amendment 
without entering upon the question of its symbol- 
izing false doctrines, for there was a very curious 
thing in that Canon as it stood before, it said 
that the use of the crucifix and the use of incense 
was unlawful during the celebration of the 
Holy Communion. Therefore, it could have 
been inferred hy cunning people that the use of the 
crucifix and the use of incense were allowable in 
other services than the Holy Communion; and I 
can imagine a very magnificent ceremony that per- 
haps some Ritualists might have gotten up ; and I 
can tell what it is. The crucifix brought into the 
Church, kept in it all through the service up to the 
time of the celebration of the Holy Communion, 
reverently borne by acolytes out of Church when 
the celebration began, and then the clergyman 
getting up and saying, " We had the crucifix in the 
Church up to the time of the celebration of the 
Holy Communion, and took it out when the Holy 
Communion begins, because when the real presence 
is there the symbolic representation is out !" 
[Laughter.] Therefore I think it is a very wise pro- 
cess to cast out those two things. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Does the Roman 
Catholic Church remove the crucifix ? 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I do not 
know anything about the Roman Catholic Church. 
I leave that to my brother from Wisconsin. 
[Laughter.] 

There is one thing which I believe must be grant- 
ed, and that is to say, that adoration is a twofold 
act. It is both internal and external. The internal 
act is an act of inner worship, praise, prayer, 



339 



thanksgiving, or all blended together. The exter- 
nal act is some ceremony which represents that iji- 
ternal feeling. Now, I suppose that since the sacra- 
ment is twofold — it consists of "an outward 
and visible sign and an inward and spirit- 
ual grace " — for sacramental worship there 
is needed, first, the internal act, and, secondly, the 
external ceremonj'-, but aught in the nature of that 
external ceremony may be properly regulated by 
the Church for its members. It may forbid this or 
it may forbid that, according to its judgment and 
according to the temper and tone of the times. If 
the Church were to forbid all external adoration, I 
believe it would be doing a cruel wrong to its chil- 
dren ; but if it says, ''You shall not genuflect," or 
it says, ' ' You shall not prostrate yourself, " or it 
says, " You shaU not bov/, " it maj^ be doing just 
what it has a right to do. 

Now, then, I understand that these specifications 
permit tiie act of adoration, which is the act of kneel- 
ing, which fully, I think, covers all that the devout 
heart wants ; and it does not say that kneeling sym- 
bolizes false doctrine or doubtful doctrine; it 
merely says the other things symbolize it ; and there- 
fore though I would not of my own will 
vote for these two hard things if I had my 
own choice, for I would prefer to permit the chil- 
dren of the Church some warmer expression of 
their internal adoration, yet if this Church think it 
best to limit it to kneehng, I am perfectly satisfied. 
The consequence is that I can vote for this Canon 
entirely as expressing the present mind of the 
Church with only one exception, and if I vote 
against it, it will be because of the exception. 
It is this: that I am afraid the Canon 
is imconstitutional. I am myself not much 
given to constitutional amendments, but ever 
since there has come this great approchement 
between myself and the delegation from Virginia, 
who are always very keen on the subject ^of consti- 
tutional amendments, I have been educated in that 
direction. I find whenever there is any practical 
work in hand, like the shoi-tening of the services, 
we will say, or like a court of appeals — things that 
everybody believes we need — ^theu a constitutional 
amendment is necessary. In other words, our Con- 
stitution stands apparently always in the face 
of work; but when it comes up to the question 
of whether there shall be a little more liberty in 
ceremonial, then the Constitution is very elastic. 
Here is my difficulty, and I will state it; it seems to 
me just this : That to allow ceremonies by Canon 
is to interfere with the law of the Rubric, to prohi- 
bit ceremonies by Canon is also to interfere with the 
law of the Rubric ; and so, if I do not vote for this, 
it will be simply on the ground that I have been 
trained by Vii'ginia to resnect the Constitution. 

The PRESIDENT. The'hour for the order of the 
day has arrived. 

THE PRESIDING BISHOP. 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I rise to a 
question of privilege. I wish to make a statement 
that the Kentucky deputation desired to make yes- 
terday afternoon, in reference to the private paper 
circulated here for the procuring of subscriptions to 
aid the Presiding Bishop of this Church. If the 
statement had been made then, it would perhaps 
have been full of indignation. We have slept 
quietly over it, and we now wish to make a simple, 
quiet, calm little statement, which we think will 
vindicate the Presiding Bishop from any intention 
to reflect on his Diocese, and will satisfy this House 
that the Diocese has not been short in the perform- 
ance of its duty to its Bishop. 

There was a report made to the House before we 
went into secret session yesterday upon the plan 
proposed for the aid and relief of the Presiding 



j Bishop by this General Convention, The Presiding 

: Bishop says, in reference to that : 

i " The plan of the Bishop of Nebraska "— 

: Who, it seems, originated the matter. 

' — "did not originate in any word of complaint on 

! my part, but out of an ideal scheme of his own, which 

I I discouraged, but did not feel at liberty to forbid. 

; The only real interest " — 

i I would call the a ttention of the House to this. 
! — " The only real interest I have felt in it has been 
I the hope of relieving Kentucky of a part of its heavy 
burden." 

j No intimation that Kentucky has not done its duty 
to the full, as I am sure you will be satisfied it has,' 
when I state that Kentucky, with a list of communi- 
cants niunbering about four thousand, has been pay- 
ing six thousand five hundred dollars per year 
for the support of the Episcopate, taxing my 
own parish, for example, where there are five hun- 
' dred and twenty-five communicants, twelve hundred 
dollars per year, exclusively for the support of the 
Episcopate. Our Bishop, feeling that he was not 
: residing in the Diocese, that he was rendering com- 
I paratively little service to the Diocese, residing in the 
j East as the Presiding Bishop of the Church, wished 
to relieve us of some little of the heavy burden, as 
he calls it, which the Diocese was called upon to 
bear, hoping to relieve us of a, thousand dollars a 
; year, not that his income should be increased that 
I amount. I think that explains that. He says 
I further : 

j "In the form which it now has taken " — 

Having reference to the private circular which 
was being distributed here. 

— "it is as profoundly regretted by me as it can 
possibly be by the delegation. Pray explain to the 
House," and beg the idea of a private subscription to 
! be withdrawn. " 

j This is signed— "E.B.SMITH." 
: I will simply state in this connection that the Dio- 
I cese has met its obligations to its Bishop up to this 
time, being short ail through the year, except to the 
amoujat of but a little over three hundred dollars, 
which will be paid him, I suppose, beyond ques- 
tion. When he requested of the Diocese that he 
i might reside in the East, and absent hin??«if 
from his Diocese, we not only gave our consent -co 
it in order to comply with his wishes, but raised a 
purse to give him as a present, in addition to the 
I money paid by the Diocese for his support, making 
I the contribution of the Diocese for that year about 
seven thousand dollars, simply for the support of 
the Episcopate. Never has our Bishop uttered one 
word of complaint because the amount which was 
contributed as his salary was not adapted to his 
necessities. And we have never known anything of 
his desire to relieve the Diocese, or have money con- 
tributed from another source. We do not wish to 
be relieved. 

I will simply state that the Rev. Dr. Schenck, who 
has had the matter in hand, would be glad to make 
i a short statement to the House. 
! Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I think I 
j shall be pardoned if I say one word after the re- 
marks which have been made, not to set myself 
i right, but as to the action of the Special Committee, 
! of which I was a member. I can only say that this 
: matter has been undertaken by those who had it in 
; charge by something which proceeded from the 
I household, and I, for one, was very happy to do 
} anything in my power to further what I knew that 
I desire to be, as I have it in my pocket in a letter signed 
by one who is regarded as the committee of one in 
that household upon expenses, I attempted to do it 
with the utmost delicacy, and said that I desired, as 
far as the appropriation from the House was con- 
cerned, that if the Committee on Expenses declined 
I doing anything the^^ would just throttle the 



340 



subject and say nothing about it before the 
House, and I so told a member of that Com- 
mittee when, as he supposed, the matter was still 
inchoate I but to my surprise the report was made 
to the House rather" adversely. I said nothing, but 
suffered the House to take its vote upon it. It was 
agreed in the Special Committee, and so stated in 
its report, that a conjoint action by way of private 
subscription should be gotten up for this pm'pose. 
The Committee was imanimous in that matter. A 
little circular marked "private," and intended only 
for the Lay Deputies of the House, was circulated, 
until a protest was made by the delegation from 
Kentucky yesterday, when, of course, the circula- 
tion of the circular was stopped. 

I only want to say that this matter has been done 
entirely outside of any association with the Diocese 
of Kentucky. The presiding Bishop has left Ken- 
tucky because, by reason of his age and infirmities, 
being f om'score, he is unable to pay the long visita- 
tions and make the arduous journeys which the dis- 
charge of his heavy duties in his Diocese involved. 
He was allowed the assistance of an assistant, and 
will soon have, I suppose, another As- 
sistant Bishop in that Diocese. Meanwhile 
he has moved to New York, where he can 
attend to the duties devolving on him by his 
OiRce as Presiding Bishop. In this matter we have 
only to deal with him as Presiding Bishop. We 
consider it very indelicate to interfere in any posi- 
tion that exists between the Bishop and his Dio- 
cese. It is not our business, and therefore we did 
not even go to the Kentucky delegation, lest we 
might be compromitted in that matter. We only 
know him as residing here in our midst as oiu' Pre- 
siding Bishop, and as such he belongs just as much 
to the Diocese of Long Island as he does to the Dio- 
cese of Kentucky. It was in view of his relations 
to the Church at large that this action vras pro- 
posed and attempted to be carried through with the 
utmost delicacy. 

I wish here distinctly to say, that the only object 
we have had in this matter— and the Conmaittee 
was imanimous, consisting of thi'ee Bishops, thi'ee 
Presbyters, and thi-ee Laymen — to afford relief, 
which we are informed upon the highest authoritj' 
and in writing, which I hold in my pocket, is neces- 
sary at this time, and we have attempted to do it 
as dehcately as possible. I wish my dear friends of 
the Kentucky delegation would not be so sensitive. 
We have never cast the slightest reflection on Ken- 
tucky. We think Kentucky has done her duty 
nobly in this matter. We only propose to do a 
little something here for the dear old Bishop who 
has came to reside in our midst as Presiding Bishop 
alone, and as such we felt that in all delicacy we 
had a right to make the attempt. That is aU. 

TESTIMOIflALS OF BISHOP ORRICK. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia, submitted the 
following resolution, which was agreed to : 

''Resolved, That the House proceed to sign the 
testimonials of the Rev. William Pendleton Orrick, 
Missionary Bishop-elect, with jm-isdiction in Shang- 
hai. 

PRESENCE OF A QUORUM, 

The SECRETARY. I have made enquiries from 
every delegation, clerical and lay, in regard to the 
possibihty of our having a quorum on Tuesday next, 
if necessary. There vnH be here on Tuesday next, 
G-od wiUing. representatives in the clerical order of 
thirty-nine Dioceses, and in the lay order of thirty- 
four, just as many as we have this day. 

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONJTECTION. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I submit 
the following resolution : 



I "Resolved, That the report of the Committee on 

' Canons, respecting Canon 4, Title II., of the Digest 
be made the order of the day for Monday next, at 
two o'clock." 
TMs Canon was brought before the General Con- 

. vention by order of the Convention of Massachu- 
setts. Many of us feel it a very important subject, 

: and we wisli to have a specific'time appointed for 
it. It is on the dissolution of the connection be- 
tween ministers and other parties. 
The motion was agreed to. 

! THE BAPTISMAL OFFICE. 

j Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Mr. Presi- 
j dent, when Mark Antony made the address over 
! the dead body of Juhus Caesar, he said : 

I " Friends, Romans, countrymen, 
! Lend me yom- ears ; 

j I come to' bury Cfesar, not to praise him." 

I I feel a great deal so, sii\ in reference to this pe- 
1 tition, of which I stand here as an advocate, with, 
j however, this emendation upon the speech of Mark 
I Antony : I come, I fear, to bury the petition, but 
i then I come to praise it. 

j We have had upon this subject ah*eady a vei-y able 
! argument from him who never arg-ues otherwise 
I than ably, my revered friend from Vii'ginia [Rev. 
'[ Dr. Andrews']. When he enters the field of argii- 
! ment he swings a sickle so thorough as leaves but 
I little else to be gleaned by them who follow him. 
I Nevertheless there is one point to which I shall pre- 
i sently call your special attention. Meanwhile let 

me give you a little history of the matter. My 
I friend f romVii'ginia took precedence rightly enough, 
i because he stands before you representing"^ the dig- 

nity of a Diocese. I follow him, naturally and pro- 

perh' enough, because I represent individuals, and 
! yet sir, a goodly array of individuals, more tha.n 
i five hundred. Five himdred and one names of 
j clergymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
' are annexed to this petition, and since the petition 

has been rendered there have been other names 
: added, making it amount to five hundred and ten or 
[ five himdred and twelve ; and from reports and 
: information received from various quarters, there 
1 can be little or no room to doubt that, if the circu- 
; lars that were sent out had reached those for whom 
'■ they were destined, we should have been able by 
I this time to have enlarged the list of subscribers to 

about six hundred, making one-fifth of the whole 
} body of the clergy of this Chm-ch. As it is, it is 
; more than a sixth. 

j The other day when I sat here and we took the 
I vote upon the "question of the Canon on Ritual 
; which came so near to entire unanimity, I think 
the feeling went abroad through the assembly, al- 
most a feeling of supernatural influence, as if "tliere 
were an overniling power here greater than om-- 
selves disposing us to be of one mind, and a sense 
of awe crept upon men's spirits, and they looked at 
\ each other and said, "Is it not amazing r" Now, 
sir, double the number of this assembly and bring 
them here in the form of petitioners for this 
object for which I plead to-day, and let 
them sound forth the unanimous " aye," and then 
should we not stand still more in awe of such a 
demonstration that would seem still more like an 
inspiration r That is the character of the appeal 
that is made to you to-day. One-sixth and more 
than one-sixth of the whole body of the clergy of 
the Church, who if assembled here would rnore 
; than easily fill this inclosure, come, and as with one 
voice ask "relief. 

Now, sir, when these circulars were sent out, 
they met with a various reception, from some an 
eager reception. " Gladly, " they said, "will I sign 
that petition. My own conscience bad been ag- 



341 



rieved many and manj'^ a time. " Answers of a 

iffereut sort came from others. High Churchmen, 
men who disagreed with the theory, kindly, most 
f raterualij^ and in some cases, appending their nega- 
tive reply, to a treatise upon the virtue and efficacy 
of infant baptism and upon the whole doctrine of 
baptismal regeneration, for which, of course, 
we were much obliged to them. 
There were other replies, however, 
not quite so courteous. One, for instance, writes 
back, " Ohsta pHncipiis, no." On another card was 
this signatm-e, " Ananias the Second," as if it were 
a group of Hars that had come in upon the Church, 
the legitimate successors of him who was slain for 
a falsehood. Another card came with a very pe- 
culiar signature, "The Devil." [Laughter.] I do 
not know whether the writer meant by the use of that 
term to characterize this petition, or whether it was 
the writer's oy^ti nom de plxime. [Laughter.] It 
was a significant title, but inasmuch as 
he was a clergyman, I suppose we should 
give him^the benefit of the doubt. Still there re- 
mains, with all the dissent, this solid assent from 
the clergy of the Church to this body for relief. 

And now, what do they ask ? What is the char- 
acter of their request ? On the face of it, the sim- 
plest thing in the world, to change essentially one 
word in a Rubric ; to put in another place an alter- 
native allowance. The whole thing is in a nut- 
shell. It seems as if the Church, by a single word, 
could crack the nut, solve the difficulty, and give 
peace throughout our borders. 

Why do they ask it ? They ask it because they 
say their consciences are aggrieved in the use of 
certain formulas of words in the service for the bap- 
tism of infants. Y<f e all know what it is. You re- 
member that in the address after the baptis- 
mal service there is used language which 
implies the absolute connection between the 
baptismal act and the responding gracious effect. 
In the thanksgiving, likewise, at the close, there is 
the same connection of absolute cause and effect. 
Now, let us see how far this is allowable, and how 
far, if for any reason, it is not allowable. Let us 
run our eye over the various theories of baptism 
which are entertained in this Church of ours. Those 
of you who have read Mosely's exhaustive work 
wiU easily undei'stand what I mean. He gives the 
whole history of every theory that is known. Those 
of you who have read a pamphlet by my reverend 
brother from Virginia are lil^ewise well informed 
on that subject. But let me remind you now in 
what respects all the theories essentially agree ex- 
cept one. 

I wiU take first the theory that holds to a change 
of state merely, the theory of Bishop Henry Onder- 
donk and of the late Bishop Hopkins, a mere exter- 
nal relationship wrought by the external act of bap- 
tism. Plainly enough that change takes place ipso 
facto. The baptism behig the introduction into the 
house, the entrance into the house is completed by 
baptism. But, again, there is another theory which 
is called the germ theory, contemplating as the 
result of baptism in the case of the infant— for 
of that alone I speak— the deposit in the soul of 
the recipient of a certain sprout or germ of grace, 
as it is called, which ma.v there abide, giving 
no demonstration of its subsistence by any actual 
expression, and possibly buried, wrapped up in the 
cerements of the grave like a kernel of coi-n in an 
Egyptian mummy, until by and by. in long-coming 
years, when the mummy is unwrapped, and the sun 
shall shine upon it and the dew shall fall and the 
soil be given it, it shall sprout into sacred, holy 
fruitfulness. Something like this is the theory that 
supposes a certain spark of divine life implanted in 
the infant's breast in the moment of baptism, but 
to be quenched, perhaps, by the first act of volun- 



tary ti-ansgression, no matter how young the boy 
or girl may be, so that it be voluntary — a boon 
which it would seem hardly worth thanking Grod 
for. 

There is another theory : I take that of Robert- 
son, representing the Broad Church theory, that in 
the plan of God from the beginning man rose with 
the promise at Eden — "the seed of the v/oman shall 
bruise the serpent's head henceforth"— there has 
been no original sin, no innate depravity, but all 
children, of all races, born into this world, are by 
virtue of their human birth children of grace and 
of God, and the baptismal ceremony is merely the 
official inauguration of the subject into the official 
position which belongs to him, just as a prince is a 
royal personage, though he have not been yet 
crowned. 

Kindred to this is the theory that grows out of a 
certain system of thought springing from the in- 
carnation of Christ, most ably, philosophically, and 
in a finished manner handled, you remember, by 
Dr. Craik, of Kentucky. Here, again, the effect is 
somewhat the same. Baptism seciires the entrance 
into that living community made alive by the in- 
carnation of Christ. 

And so we go on, and then you will observe that 
in every one of these theories thus fai- the holder of 
each theory can, with perfect propriety and assur- 
ance, use the language in the baptismal service, 
which is couched in the form of absolute expression, 
"This child is regenerate." Is it a change of state 'i 
He has come into new relations by virtue of bap- 
tism. Is it a germ ? He received the germ unknown 
and unnoticed by man in the act of being baptized. 
And so throughout. All these theories accept, there- 
j fore, the absolute phraseology of the Prayer-Book 
but one, and all who hold these theories, therefore, 
rise in embattled opposition agamst any other 
theory. 

JSTow, sir, there is another theory. There is a 
theory that excludes the idea of absolutism. It 
passes in thought thus : Baptism is a sacrament ; 
a sacrament is a covenant between God and man ; 
a covenant between two parties implies and in- 
volves necessarily conditions ; the conditions con- 
stitute the life of the covenant ; the conditions 
absent, the covenant fails ; the conditions present, 
the covenant is fulfilled. In its essential nature, 
then, Baptism is a covenant, and if the human part 
of the conditions fail the Divine Covenanter is he\6. 
by no manner of obligation whatsoever. For His 
own part He cannot fail ; but then He demands 
fulffirnent of the conditions. "Doubt you not, 
therefore, but earnestly believe that He for His 
part will favorably receive this child," but then the 
child must for his part promise, and so on. Condi- 
tions, then, they say, make the life of the covenant, 
and the conditions failing, the covenant fails. There 
is a principle of common sense. If any man can 
deny it, let him do so in his own mind. 

Now it follows, the grace of baptism being de- 
pendent upon conditions, those conditions, not 
always certified to be present, may cause the failure 
of the promised grace. In other words, as a gene- 
ral proposition, the grace of the sacrament is by no 
means necessarily tied to the sacrament, just as 
Simon Magus after his baptism was still in the bond 
of iniquity and the gall of bitterness ; just as Corne- 
lius before his baptism was a receiver of the 
Holy Ghost, which constituted him a due re- 
cipient of the baptism. So from these facts 
they pro ve that the sacrament and the grace are 
not of necessity connected. If they may be separ- 
I ated at all, they may be separated again and again, 
and if their separation depends upon the conditions 
performed or not performed, then we must exclude 
from our phraseology upon that subject every form 
of absolute affirmation. There is the ground, then, 



342 



of those who hold as the conclusion of their theory 
this statement. Regeneration may precede the bap- 
tismal act ; it may occur in the baptismal act ; it 
may follow the baptismal act ; but it is by no means 
by any law of philosophical thinking or of Scripture 
teaching absolute^ tied to the sacra- 
mental act itself. "You can at once see that 
those who hold that theory cannot but demur, reluct, 
and be aggrieved at being obliged to thank God in 
absolute phrase for a result which they are not by 
any means sure has taken place. Their theory for- 
bids it. And then the question meets us : Has their 
theory a right to live? Is there any such tlioory as 
theirs accredited in the Church and by the Church? 
If there be not, then, sir, the.y must be ruled out of 
court at once; they have no right to a place among 
us. Yet, if, on the other hand, the Church herself 
has warranted and justified such a theory of a con- 
stitutional grace in the sacrament, so that the grace 
may be now, then, or pa^st, v/e have no right to in- 
sist upon their using words which shall express an 
opposite meaning from that. Now, then, has the 
Church warranted any such thing? 

I call your attention to that decision of the high- 
est ecclesiastical tribunal in Protestant Christen- 
dom — the decision of the Judicial Committee of the 
Privy Council of England— in the case very well 
known as the Gorham case. I know, and jou 
know, with what measure of obloquy the deci- 
sions of that court have been greeted here and there 
in the English Church ; you know as well as I know 
how that court has been disparaged and decried be- 
cause it was said to be a court of laymen, notwith- 
standing there were Bishops and Archbishops upon 
it ; and in opposition to it, and in superiority to it, 
has been advanced the other court, the Court of 
Arches, with a single layman as the judge. So, what- 
ever we may say of the merits or the demerits, the 
qualifications or the disqualifications of that court, 
it stands to-day as the prime authority in every 
matter of ecclesiastical discussion within this 
Church as in the bounds of the Church of England. 
And let me remind jon of another thing, that that 
court, though consisting of laymen, consists of lay- 
men learned in the law, laymen v/ith the very qual- 
ifications for doing what they profess to do, 
namely : interpret the laws of the Church of Eng- 
land, disclaiming at the very outset all ecclesiastical 
preferences, prejudices, blas'ses, that might lead them 
to shape a doctrine after their wishes or their 
traditions, escluding fear, a,nd favor, and affection, 
and binding themselves to act constantly by 
the strict rules, acknowledged rules of "inter- 
pretation which are applicable to secular laws. 
In the use of that faculty, by that sort 
of practice, by virtue of fair interpretation, 
they pronounce the highest judgment, remember, 
of the Church of England, bin(iing equally upon 
us, because they judge our standards as well as the 
standards of the Church, and they declare that the 
view I have last set forth was a view that is tenable 
in the Church of England. Now, if a view may 
lawfully be held in the Church of England, then 
the language of the Church in her formulaiies 
should, of course, be made to correspond to her ad- 
judications. 

That is English decision. Let me call your atten- 
tion to American decree. The Bishops in council, 
with an extraordinary unanimity, set forth a decla- 
ration touching our offices for the baptism of in- 
fants in the following words : 

" The subscribers, Bishops of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church of the United States, being asked, in 
order to the quieting of the consciences of sundry 
members of the said Church, to declare our convic- 
tions as to the meaning of the word ' regenerate ' in 
the office for the ministration of Baptism of Infants, 
do declare that, in our opinion, the word ' regener- 



ate ' is not there so used as to determine that a moral 
change in the subject of Baptism is wrought in the 
Sacrament. " 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time is out. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I move that the 
reverend doctor have time to finish his speech. 

The motion was agreed to nem. con. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Can we 
ask for higher and more inclusive authority than 
this ? Mark the phraseolog:f . No moral change is 
certainly determined by the language of the bap- 
tismal service, say the House of Bishops— " moral 
change." The House was nearly or quite unani- 
mous in that declaration. I have heard it suggest- 
ed that all the Bishops did not understand 
that " regeneration " signified a moral change. I 
know not what dictionaries they might use. I 
know not what psychological views they may, one 
or another of them, adopt and cherish; but one 
thing I know, that the Catechism declares the in- 
v/ard grace of baptism to be a death unto sin and a 
new birth unto righteousness. And this is the. 
change according, you remember, to the Baptismal 
service, v/hen it says : ' ' What is the inward part of 
baptism ? " "A death unto sin and a new birth mito 
righteousness; for being hy nature children of God, 
we are thereby" — not by baptism, but by this death 
unto sin— " made the children of God." Now, sir, 
are not sin and righteousness moral terms ? Do tliey 
not denote moral qualities and qualifications ? If 
sin and righteousness are to be excluded from the 
category of moral qualities, it strikes me we have a 
novel S7f stem of theology introduced among us, and 
we may as well destroy 'our dictionaries. If sin and 
righteousness be moral qualities, then a death and 
crucifixion to the one (sin), and a new living crea- 
tion to the other (righteousness), must be a moral 
change ; and yet that mora.1 cha.nge is not necessa- 
rily determined, by the language of the Baptismal 
Service, to belong to the infant recipient of the 
baptism. 

Now, sir, grounding myself upon this simple de- 
monstration — for a demonstration I claim it to be — 
I rest ray argument upon one point. It is the point 
of simple fairness, truth, and justice. I maintain 
that if the Church has admitted, tolerated, and al- 
lowed to be held the doctrine that I speak of, in the 
exposition that I now denote, then, I claim, that the 
Church has no right to exact of any of her children 
a form of expression that shall not only stultify, 
nullify, but falsify her own prime teaching. I claim, 
therefore, in behalf of these nearly six hundred 
petitioners that the Church shall be consistent 
with herself ; and I feel strong in this point, for 
when any man pleads the cause of simple truth and 
honesty he may feel that his feet are planted on the 
rock, yea, upon the very I'ock of ages, which is 
truth, imperishable truth, and He who sits above it 
lovetli not anything that maketh a lie. Now, sir, 
you can see at once how clergymen of our 
Church, who hold the theory that I speak 
of, holding it as perfectly justifiable, may 
be aggrieved when they are obliged to use lan- 
guage that contradicts iipon the face of it, and in 
absolute terms, the very theory they are allowed to 
hold. And we know what reproaches are cast upon 
them. Some of them omit it from their use of the 
service, and some of them claim — I will not say 
" the wish is father to the thought " — that they have 
a right to omit it, because many of the services of the 
Church are omitted on system Ify almost all 
her clergy. I go, let me say by way 
of parenthesis, for , a literal and abso- 
lute construction of the laws of the Church ; 
but nevertheless 1 can see — and any man, I think, 
with any largeness of mental discourse can see — 
how a very conscientious, large-hearted, earnest- 
minded man who seeks his counsel from direct com- 



munion with the Giver of every good and perfect i 
gift, who asks direction for his very soul of souls, 
I can see and you can see how, when the con- 
flict comes, ho should feel bound within himself 
to prefer, as by a paramount obligation, the 
truth which is " essential, which is of God, 
rather than the ti-uth which obliges him to bow to i 
a mere conventional regulation expressed by a par- 
ticular form of v/ords. I do not say that I would 
do that ; but I can have abundant consideration for 
the man who is so familiar with essential truths that 
when he comes to the conventionalisms of life they 
shall seem to him in comparison as of far less obli- 
gation, and that we may thus account for these de- 
partures from strict Rubrical exactness on 
the part of some of the clergy which many 
of us are supposed to reprobate contemptu- 
ously, almost hatingiy, for some expressions 
are full of venom, at any rate contemptuously, and 
charging them with being violatoi's of the truth. 
Sir, in such a case the falsity is not with them ; the 
falsity is rather with the Church herself, who forces 
them to the falsity. It is easy to say, " Let them 
quit our borders; let them go and float abroad." 
But, sir, they belong to the Church. They have the 
calling of the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost has 
put His seal and impress upon their ministry in 
many notable instances. Whom God hath called, 
we have no right to turn away from the Church. 
What God hath joined together, let no man put 
asunder. All that we, calling ourselves the Chuj'ch, 
have to do, and which we should rather do, it seems 
to me, would be abate the grievance, modify the 
form of the words. What harm is done i 

This proposition meets with various manifold ob- 
jections from all quarters, and, among the rest, 
is this very one, Harm is done, because one alter- 
ation of the phrase would mean a change in the 
Church's doctrine." I have never been able 
to take into my own mind the force of that objec- 
tion. Alteration of the Church's doctrine ! All 
agree that the Church holds some form of baptis- 
mal regeneration. Does this make a change in her 
doctrine ^ The sacrament is finished ; the grace is 
bestowed ; the child is bom again. Whatsoever 
of benediction or of blessing comes to the recipi- 
ent of that act is already received, and should the 
parties turn and go away at that moment they 
would go with God's benison upon them ; they 
would go in peace. All bej'-ond that is gratuitous, 
surplusage merely ; and is that necessity ^ 

But does not the alternative expression of any opin- 
ion or doctrine of the Church involve in any way a 
denial of it or its opposite? Neither. I speak here 
with authority. Y'ou have only to open your Pray- 
er-Books to find my voucher. Take, if you please, 
the alternative formula in the oi'dination service. 
Are there two meanings there in those two forms ? 
By no means. When the Bishop says, "Take thou 
authority to preach, to execute the office of a priest 
in the Church of God," and says no more, does he 
mean to deny the gift and agency of the Holy Ghost 
in the execution of that office, any more than 
if he had said, " Receive the Holy Ghost " ? Not at 
all. The non-expression of one is not a denial of it. 
Take, if you please, again, the sign of the cross in 
this very baptism. Take, again, what is called the 
Evangelical Law at the close of the Decalogue in the 
ante-communion service. The minister may pass 
on and pretermit that law altogether, from year end 
to year end. Does the Church mean to say thereby 
that any true son of the Church meij hold that the 
Decalogue, whose scheme and system of outward 
morality is all that the Church beheves in, that there 
is no recognition by her of that high supernal prin- 
ciple of the nevv^ birth which works out in love to 
God supreme, and love to man impartial ? 

The omission, then, is not a denial. Take the two 



Ci'eeds, if you please. Take first, however, the 
Apostles' Creed — the descent into hell. The Church 
allows us an alternative phrase, oi- it allows its en- 
tire omission. Does the Church mean by entire al- 
lowance to deny that she holds the doctrine ? Take 
the two Creeds by themselves. A minister may use 
the Apostles' Creed or the Mcene Creed ; and he 
may use it year in and year out, and he may be a 
Unitarian in sentiment, and repeat the Apostles' 
Ci-eed, as any Unitarian will. But does the Church 
by that allowance mean to deny that she holds the 
doctrine of the triune personality of the Godhead as 
the vital truth of the great salvation ? 

Now, sir, I think these instances are enough to 
prove that the alteration, the omission, the giving 
alternative expressions, does by no means involve 
denial. If this be so, then that objection, I think, is 
met and satisfied. 

We have other forms of objection. We are told 
that if we begin this alteration, we do not 
know where we shall end ; this is the en- 
tering -wedge to a great change. Who told 
you so ? Your brethren in simple, honest trust and 
faith come and ask you to change that which is to 
their conscience and souls a grievance. They tell 
you they ask no more. Now, will you refuse a pe- 
tition grounded on law, grounded on reasonable- 
ness, rooting itself in fraternity — will you refuse 
that petition because of an apprehension that some- 
thing worse may come, by and by, from the same 
quarter ? I confess my own impatience whenever 
1 hear this specific objection made to the proposi- 
tion before us. It soimds like a wail of feebleness. 
It sounds like the plaint of a weak, indulgent mother, 
whose only and indulged son comes to her, teasing 
continually for new and greater benefits; 
and she feels that with eveiy benefit she 
gives, every grant she makes, she is only opening 
the way wider for a larger and a more mischievous 
indulgence by-and-by. Are we that weak mother ? 
Are we not men who claim the common sense of 
men ? Are we not men to meet here and scrutinize 
every application, analyze and dissect it to its 
minutest fibre, its every quality and condition, be- 
fore we grant it ? It is too feeble a reply. I was 
surprised to hear it from my friend from Pitts- 
burgh yesterday. 

V/ e are accustomed sometimes to hear in the 
newspapers, and sometimes hear it in speeches 
here, a slur, a taunt cast upon those who ask this 
favor at your hands, and it takes the form generally 
of " weak consciences " and " weak brothers. " Weak 
consciences ! I have endeavored just nov/ to show 
that the struggle in the mind of the men who com- 
plain of this thing is this: It is the struggle of a 
strong conscientiousness holding fast by the eternal 
truth of God, a struggle with the feeble grasp of 
conventionalism. Sir, let no man make light of 
conscience in any of its moods or forms. It is 
God's vicegerent in the soul ; it rules from 
that sway a sceptre, the very vice- 
regal sceptre of Omnipotence itself. It is God's 
grand voucher to man of man's ovvn possible affiha- 
tion and unity with Him. It is the mouth-piece of 
the eternal truth, evermore, however misguided, 
however educated, evermore pointing to the essen- 
tial distinction between right and wrong. I may 
pity a scrupulous conscience, but I cannot help lov- 
ing it. I revere a delicate, sensitive conscience that 
would rather die than sin, and I pity the lamenta- 
tions of the man who, when the pica is solemnly 
urged by a Christian brother of conscientiousness, 
can taunt him with the very phrase, and turn that 
sacred term into a mockery and byword. I would 
not be that man myself. So long as I revere God, 
I must reverence his auxiliary and representative in 
the human bosom. 

Another objection is this: " These men do not ask 



344 



for themselves ; they do not all complain of this 
grievance ; they ask for others." Grant it, sir. I 
stand in that very position myself, and so did every 
one of the signers of the circular that went forth. 
But what of that i Will you not respect more the 
man who comes and pleads for a suffering- 
neighbor, than you will a man who comes with 
the plea of his own necessity i- Will you not 
give your respectful hearing more to 
a crowd of clergymen, you, our brethren, who come 
here to plead with you for pity's sake, for frater- 
nity's sake, to listen to the call of the other, your 
brethren as well as theii' brethren ? Certainly, sir, 
instead of weakening the application, this consider- 
ation, I think, strengthens it immensely. They 
plead not for themselves, but they plead for those 
who need, who suffer, who are ready to weep. 

I do not know of any other special objection that 
I need review just now, Mr. President. I think T 
feel strong enough in the simple conviction I have 
expressed that I plead for simple, pure truth. I 
stand grounded, I am sure, in this appeal in perfect 
righteousness of demand. I might dwell upon the 
great expediency of granting this application. I 
might point out the possible perils of the Church. 
This is no panic legislation, as it has been called, 
that you are summoned to. ' ' Panic ! " It has been be- 
fore the Church for years, apjpeal after appeal, and 
meeting only with such audiences as might well dis- 
com-age any other appeal. But when 1 was asked 
whether I would sign this petition and send it abroad, 
I said with all my heart, " Yes, for it is the very least 
thing we can ask of the Church, for if she will not 
grant this she will not grant anything, " It is a pro- 
per test question of our accessibleness to the claims 
of justice and trath. It is a just claim; it is the 
least claim that could be made. And when I was 
asked in the second place, "Do you suppose it will be 
granted f I just as unhesitatingly and promptly' said : 
"I do not believe it. From all my knowledge 
of the antecedents of the General Convention, I 
have no idea that they will grant it ; but let the 
fault be theirs, and not ours. I will do the work ; I 
will be one of the signers ; I will, if necessary, and 
accident or Providence calls for it, be one of the 
champions for the cause in the General Conven- 
tion." For my own petition, so to speak, the hst 
that I introduced here, I happened — I beheve, I will 
not say, to be the onlj^ one here who signed it, but 
the only one here of those who started it ; and there- 
fore it falls to me, by accident, to introduce it and 
to advocate it. I do so. 

Although we may not be guilty of panic legisla- 
tion, it is well enough for us to look at the signs of 
the times. We may exhaust the patience of those 
who ought to be near and dear to us ; and the time 
may come when some, feeling that they have no 
hope in this respect, and feeling the weariness of 
soul that comes from this struggle between essential 
truth and conventional obligation, will at last per- 
haps be wearied out ; they ms.y depart. We cannot 
lose them. We ought not to lose them. I wish I had 
in my hand at this moment the letter of Canon Lid- 
don to Sir John Coleridge, when be speaks of the 
Ritualists, or at least those of his party being ex- 
cluded from the Church of England, or not ex- 
cluded but going out in voluntar}^ secession, and 
then speaks in the same connection of what is called 
the Evangelical party in the Church of England in 
which he frankly and tenderly says that the Church 
can by no means spare them, that they have been 
of too much value, that they have in the missonary 
work been prime movers ; in the work of the 
Church's Hymnody they have furnished the richest 
material ; in the animation and energy of Church 
work they gave the first grand impulse to the Church, 

Now, sir, change the name, and the tale may be 
told of those in this country of the same class. The 



I missionary cause is indebted for its origin and its 
fij'st strong support and impulse to that same class 
of churchmen ; your missionarv treasuries are in a 
great measm-e to-day filled with the hberality of 

: those who represent that same system of thought : 
they are among the most devoted and energetic of 
the Chm^ch. In saying this I would not disparage 
those great works of labor and of love and of faith 
which characterize the very opposite party in 
the Church, but I wiU say that for spirituality, for 
energy, for an elevated strain and standard of 
piety and godly living, for large liberality to 
the cause of Christ, this Church of om's is 
largely indebted to them for her present condition 
of thrift and grace. No man here wiU wish to deny 
that postulate ; and, taking it as accepted, I say we 
cannot afford to lose them ; and if they go they 
mu.st go to sweU the ranks of another system, risen 
up like a mushroom— risen up, you say, without 
authority, but, nevertheless, standing forth with 
just as true and absolute authority of apostolicity 
as this Church itself, with Bishops consecrated 
even as our Archbishop Parker was bv Bishops out 
of place. ["No, no."] Very well; I take 
it back ; I take it back, though only for 
the nonce. [Laughter.] It is a question to 
be discussed in private with my friends. 
Nevertheless, be that as it may, one friend who 
says "no, no," does not deny the validity of that 
ordination. That being the case, there is the acorn 
of a large, thrifty, wide-spreading Church. ShaU 
it supplant ours ? '^Never, if this Church is true to 
her heritage and her vows. But still, ' 'a prudent man 
foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself." If it be 
desirable to save this large class of men; if they 
whom so many are accustomed to speak of with so 
much of contempt are, nevertheless, in our mature, 
and deliberate, and cold-blooded judgments, worthy 
of being kept among us, is it not worthy of us to 
listen to their claims to answer their appeal ? 

Sir, I have intimated once, and said plainly again 
that I expected this measure to fail. I do expect it 
to fail. I feel as if I were now singing the requiem 
over the grave of tliis petition, but I know — 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. Speak for 
youj'seK. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Very weU, 
sir, I speak for myself ; but I know, that in pro- 
nouncing this, which may be a funeral oration, I 
bury a corpse that has with it the principle of vital- 
ity and resurrection powers. It will rise again, and 
the Church shall meet it, and in better moods : if 
not now, she will one day grant it. It is the des- 
tiny of truth : 

"Truth crushed to earth will rise again. 
The eternal years of God are hers." 

So, then, I believe there is a resurrection power in 
this truth, and though you may reject these peti- 
tioners, term after term, yet remember. When 
William Wilberforce introduced the question of 
the abolition of the slave-trade into the British 
I Parliament, he was hooted, he was crowed at in the 
insignificant way of those wise legislators ; he was 
called "the pious member"; he was shunned in 
social life ; everybody avoided him ; and he 
was refused. But, again and again, year 
after year, Parliament after Parhament, the 
appeal was brought in and again killed, and again 
brought m and killed again, until at last a change 
went on in the public sentiment of Great Britain 
until the appeal prevailed, and Wilberforce became 
the man of the nation, and every Englishman was 
proud to have been a friend of Wilberforce and 
Emancipation. I look to the same result here. I 
care not if this appeal be dead and buried. I say 
again, the tnith that is in it shall make it arise and 
live and act powerfully upon you. One of these days, 



345 



When the barriers that have hitherto obstimcted the 
free flow of fraternal feeling among ns shall be bro- 
ken do^vn, when the flood gates are opened, and the 
amalgamation of parties, of which there are such 
beautiful and refreshing tokens, shall have matured 
and ripened into fact ; then, sir, when the spirit of 
Divine sousbip and of holy fraternity shall fill the 
looms of churchmen, each man will be glad to gTa]it 
the poor privilege of a change in a few words of a 
Rubric, each man will be giad to take by the hand 
the men whom he has admitted among us, each man 
will be glad to have given his voice for that highest, 
noblest, sacredest privilege of a churchman and a 
Christian — freedom of conscience. 

Rev. Dr. BRECK, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
wish to ask the gentleman whether we are to under- 
stand that the five hundi^ed memorialists are not af- 
flicted in their own consciences in the use of this 
service i 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I thought 
I noticed that. 

Rev. Dr. BRECK, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
wished to know what idea you had as to the propo- 
sition of men who are aMicted in the use of this 
service, for I think it affects the whole question. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I cannot 
say. I know from information that there are a 
great many. Perhaps my friend from Virginia 
may give you information on that point, if the 
Chair will give him the floor for a moment. 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Vii'ginia. If I may be 
allowed to answer that question, I will say this: I 
cannot, of course, tell, because I do not know all the 
names ; but I know of a very considerable portion 
of those who come from the part of the Church 
where I live that are of that class. They have told 
me for years past that they were pained every time 
they used the service. They explained and ex- 
plained it until at last aU explanation was quite im- 
possible. I know some on that card, and one 
hundred and forty clergymen on another paper, of 
whom more than half, at least, are of that class. 

Rev. Dr. BPtECK, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
wish to say that, with all my experience, I have 
never met, in the Dioceses of Ohio and Pennsylvania 
and Delaware, v/ith ten men who were afflicted in 
the use of this service. I have heard now and then 
individuals say just what the distinguished Deputy 
has said — that he does not ask it for himself, but he 
asks it for brethren. I believe that there is a great 
deal of this feeling in these memorials, for many of 
the Deputies may remember a memorial was 
brought into the Convention in 1868, which was pre- 
pared in the city of New York and sent to each 
Diocese to get signatures, declaring that the whole 
Church was distracted, and each Diocese was to say 
that the Diocese was distracted from one end to the 
other. This was sent to Delaware, where we were 
in perfect harmony, where there was no distraction, 
and yet this was circulated and signed there and 
brought into the Convention as proof of the dis- 
tracted state of the Church I I believe that if these 
five hundred memorialists were to-day to 
march up this aisle and could each one be cate- 
chised as to the difficulty that he undergoes in 
using the baptismal service, there would not be 
fifty men out of five hundred who would say that 
they could conscientiously use it at all. Instead of 
its being the impressive memorial of a large body, 
one-sixth of the clergy of the Chui'ch, it dwindles 
down to a very small number, and I believe that if 
the gentlemen who bring forward this matter 
would only instruct their brethren who are afiiicted 
in this way, this memorial would not come to us, 
and this matter would be quieted down. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Mr. President 
and gentlemen, it is, I must say, with a good deal of 



! hesitation that I stand up to speak in behalf of the 
j doctrine of the Prayer-Book — 

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. Will the 
i doctor allow me a moment, as I shall not be here 
' perhaps at the proper time. A very important 
I misstatement, if I may so call it, was made yes- 
; terday, which may have an important effect on this 

Suestion ; and that is, it was stated here by the 
•eputy from Pittsburgh that it required the ap- 
proval of two Greneral Conventions to change a 
Rubric. Such is not the fact. It requires that it 
be only proposed at one General Convention and 
acted upon at the next. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. May 
I ask a question, in that immediate connection, with 
Dr. Adams' consent ? 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I do not see 
why a discussion shoiild be interpolated in the time 
given me. 

The PRESIDENT. Dr. Adams will go on. 
Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I hope this 
House will give me a httle time further, if I do not 
succeed in putting what I have to say within the 
limits appointed. I say it is with a great deal of 
hesitation that I stand up to speak before this ven- 
erable assembly of clergy and laity upon a subject 
so important as this. It is simply because I 
know that the two ablest and best minds 
of the House are upon the contrary side. My 
dear old friend from Vii'ginia I calculate to be the 
j ablest politician and shrewdest engineer that ever 
I acted on the floor of this House. [Laughter.] It is 
I interesting to me to see how opponents shudder when 
he conies on the floor. They know he means busi- 
ness. And as to the Clerical Deputy from Massa- 
chusetts, he has an air of graciousness and of dignity 
and^of sweetness about him which, if anything could 
convince one of the soimduess of the argument he has 
adopted, would certainly do it. Therefore, Mr. Pres- 
ident, I have a great deal of hesitation in speaking 
I upon this matter. Still at the same time I hope I 
j may be able to go down to the shrewd, hard common 
! sense of the Church on this matter. 
I The first thing I would suggest to the gentlemen of 
I this House is^ that a great drag-net has been cast 
i out by those two able men to carry into its folds all 
i men who, for any reason whatever, are sore upon 
j the subject of baptismal regeneration; or, I should 
say more properly, regeneration in baptism. This 
I drag-net, managed by these fishers of men, for I 
must truly say they are so, has been able to bring up 
five hundred men, clergymen of our Chiu-ch, who for 
one reason or another have objected to this bap- 
tismal service, and are seeking to obtain a 
relaxation of it. I hold to statistics in the 
strongest way, and I say that our two broth- 
ers have succeeded in convincing the clergy 
and laity of the Church that five-sixths of our cler- 
gy have no objection whatsoever to the baptismal 
service, and no desire for any relaxation whatsoev- 
er. That, I think, is an argument that they never 
calculated upon when they undertook this altera- 
tion, but so be it, five-sixths of all the clergymen of 
the Church are perfectly content with the doctrines 
of the Prayer-Book, and the practice and principle 
that has been handed down to us by our ancestors. 

Now, Mr. President, I have a good many points in 
this argument that I am going to bring forth to you. 
One of the Bishops of the EngUsh Church, with 
whom I have been acquainted for many years, and 
who does me the honor of corresponding with me, 
was writing to me in regard to the composition of 
this House ; it was Dr. Moberley, Bishop of Salis- 
bury, who calls me his " Dear friend," and whom I 
think worthy of being the friend of any man in this 
House. He wrote me in regard to the composition 
of this House, and I answered him : "Bishop, the 
laity in the House of Deputies of the General 



U6 



Convention are not a disorderly mass, but they 
are the most conservative men of the Church." 
" What is the reason for that ? " he enquired ; I an- 
swered, because in the House of General Conven- 
tion we have so many men that have done the work 
of judges in the United States courts or in our 
State courts, and therefore these men and 
that judicial influence balance completely 
the tendency of the laity to irregularity 
or to excitement. He wrote me back 
again that in his Synod he had found the same 
thing also. Now, Mr. "President, to the legal element 
in this Convention, to the judicial element, also, 
and to the clergy of our Church, who are not to be 
carried away by excitement, but has^e that temper 
which is the temper of the English Church — the 
legal temper — I wish to address one argument, or 
one branch of my argument, in reference to this 
question. 

This dispute has been a very long-continued dis- 
pute. We have had legal trials upon it. That 
Bishop of irregular ordination who is now lying 
loose about in the West, and East, and all about 
[laughter] — Bishop Cheney — was once brought to 
trial by one of "the greatest legal minds in the 
Church, and what was it for^ It was for exercising 
of his own accord this very privilege which my distin- 
guished friends come here and propose to us to give 
by Canon to every clergyman of the Church, That 
is to say, Cheney was under the law of the Church 
brought up for trial for omitting the very words 
which our distinguished friend claims should be 
omitted here, and he was condemned for it ; he was 
in his contumacy degraded for it. He is now a | 
Bishop, wandering about, consecrated by Bishop | 
Cummins. I would ask the legal gentlemen of this } 
House, What is the effect of this proposed amend- j 
ment ? It is simply to make us reverse that verdict, j 
Now, we have no judicial rights whatever, but sim- j 
ply legislative. But my equally distinguislied brother | 
from Massachusetts and my equally distinguished 
brother from Virginia come up, and are for this House 
passing a Canon, or an amendment, or a Rubric, \ 
on this subject. Suppose we go according to the j 
recommendation of our Committee on Canons, and 
what do we do ? We pass it. The gentleman from j 
Virginia has never told us of its effect; the j 
gentleman from Massachusetts has never told us of I 
its effect. What does the man who is a Chenej-ite | 
in Illinois or Wisconsin say ^ "Why, you acted | 
unjustly; you deposed poor Cheney, our present j 
Bishop, because on Christia,n grounds, grounds of j 
conscience, honest and true and heavenly-minded, , 
he omitted a single word. Now you, as a General i 
Convention, authorize all to omit it.'' 

Mr. President, I think that my brother from Vir- 
ginia is very shrewd; I think that my brother from 
Massachusetts is exceedingly able ; but it is my opin- 
ion that such a proposition as this will not be pass- 
ed by this House, that the distinguished lawyers 
and distinguished judges whom I see here v/ill never 
suffer this House of General Convention to stultify 
themselves by such an absurd action. I know and 
am old enough to have known how Evans and 
Chambers and Chief Justice Jones moved the 
Church. If we had a Methodist assembly or a 
Roman Catholic assembly, we could not have 
had them. When they look at the effect of this in a i 
legal point of view, such men will not be willing to | 
let us go into such a den of mud as this. j 

Now, having spoken of this matter, I will speak of | 
another, and I hope, if I am tedious, that the House ' 
will put me down ; if I am not tedious, and talk a | 
little common sense, and go dowii to the hard bed- j 
rock, I hope they will give me time enough to say j 
what I have to say. I go now to the question of | 
conscience. With regard to this matter of con- | 
science, I would say — first, that no mortal man i 



has ever known that I would sneet* or 

slur at any conscience whatsoever. I trust 
it is not in the Christian feeling of 
any one to do so. I therefore put that thing aside. 
I am willing to acknowledge that Torquemada and 
Arbues, the inquisitors of old, were conscientious 
men ; I am also fully convinced that Ignatius Loyola 
was a very conscientious man, and I respect their 
conscience. If 1 had been in their condition under 
the same circumstances, I dare say I might consci- 
entiously have done the same as they did. ' But con- 
science is not God ; conscience is the faculty of us 
weak and frail human beings. Conscience may be 
diseased, as the eye may be diseased or the ear may 
be diseased ; and, therefore, in listenhig to the voice 
of God, my conscience may not leave my mind in 
perfect repose; my mind may see but dimly the 
light of the glory which God intends to cast on the 
soul of every human being. There may be such a 
thing as a diseased conscience. 

Again, conscience, in addition to being diseased, 
may be uninstructed. An ignorant conscience is the 
worst of aU consciences. I have no doubt that 
the savage Indian, when he torments his miserable 
victim, is under the influence of an uninstructed 
conscience. I am not going, therefore, to tax my- 
self on that ground. 1 am going to say that I re- 
spect every conscience that is somid, and that is well 
instructed, and none else, and I believe the distin- 
guished gentleman from Massachusetts would agree 
with me in this. 

Now I want to foUow this matter out. Here are 
five hundred gentlemen that appeal to us, clergy 
of the Chm'ch, for the insertion of a Rubric and a 
change in the Prayer-Book, which bo7ia fide and 
actually destroys our doctiine, for it is neither 
more nor less than this. They appeal to us 
because their conscience is violated. May it not 
be that the conscience in these cases is 
a diseased conscience ; that it results from a mor- 
bid state of feeling that this appeal is made ? May 
it not be that it is an uninstructed conscience 'i I 
think it may so be, because I know full well that 
the distmguished gentleman from Massachusetts, 
who makes this appeal in behalf of the consciences 
of these gentlemen, has never felt any scruples upon 
it himself. He has used the two prayers which 
are objected to in the service from the be- 
ginning of ills ministerial life until now. 
I remember happily a young gentleman whom I 
assisted in training for the ministry, who told me 
what brought him into the Church. He said that 
what taught him the doctrine of regeneration in 
baptism was that when he was in Boston he went 
into Dr. Vinton's Sunday-school, and there, said he, 
"I saw in his catechism that in baptism I 
was made a member of Chiust, a child of God, 
and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven; and 
that. Dr. Adams, was the first thing that got the re- 
generation in baptism into my head." I think it 
possible that there may be in these men a morbid 
conscience, that there may be a want of instraction 
in conscience, and that they may come up to us un- 
der these false motives. 

But I would say something more in reference to 
this matter of conscience, and I hope it will be 
attended to. These men at twenty-one years of 
age, or at twenty-three, solemnly accepted the 
Prayer-Book of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
and as solemnly promised to believe its doctrines 
and conform to its teachings. Now, when a full- 
gro^vn man, an educated man of three and twenty 
years of age, whose thought has been directed to the 
study of the Scriptures and to the study of 
dogma, has signed that docmnent in the full 
maturity of his mind and as the completion of his 
system of theology, it seems to me that, at this late 
day, it is rather a poor thing to come up and say, 



347 



" My conscience is too weak to be bound on this 
subject ; I demand relaxation ; I demand an altera- 
tion of the Prayer-Book, so that my conscience may 
be relieved," ' I take it for granted that in 
the case of the mass of these men, it is 
rather a feeble and diseased conscience, 
or it is a conscience uninstructed ; and 
therefore I, as a High Churchman, say go to the 
Prayer-Book, go to the Bible, and if you find any 
difficulty with regard to the matter, settle it there. 
But in order that my distinguished brother from 
Massachusetts and my equally distinguished brother 
from Vii-ginia may know the proper course in 
which we High Churclnnen deal with this matter, I 
will state a case that came before my- 
self in which a clergyman had a doubt 
in regard to the doctrine of the Church on the Holy 
Trinity; and what did I do in regard to that man ? 
I told him: " Mr. So-and-so, your conscience is 
weak; you are therefore in doubt as to your duty 
before God in using the Prayer-Book. Your duty 
is not to leave the Church; your duty is solemnly 
and before God to withdraw from the use of that 
Book for a certedn length of time and 
from the exercise of your ministry ; pray 
and study with all your heart and soul until 
you find out that which is right, and then if you 
find according to your judgment after all this study, 
pra^^erfiilly directed, that you are wrong in using 
that Book, withdraw from the Church whose man- 
ual ibis." That is the way to deal with these gen- 
tlemen. Their business, if they hesitate about the 
Prayer-Book, is to go solemnly to the Bishop, tell him 
that they hesitate about its use, withdraw from its 
use for a certain time ; and then if being instructed 
fully they are convinced of the difficulty which we 
hear of to-day, let them withdraw from the Church, 
and God's blessing will go with them. But the idea 
of coming here and making this excitement is not 
what an honest, instructed conscience would do in 
the present state of the Church. 

Mr. President,! have a few things more to say. 
In the English Church there have always been Cal- 
vinistic clergy. Did the English Church ever put 
its Calvinistic clergy out ? Not a bit. Calvinistic 
clergy in the English Church profess precisely the 
doctrine that my reverend friend from Massachu- 
setts has brought forward in his speech. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. I move that 
the doctor be allowed to go on. 
The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wiscofisin. Calvinistic 
clergy, that is to say clergy holding the doctrine 
upon'predestination of the great St. Augustine, have 
always been permitted to live in the English Church, 
and enjoy livings, and even Bishoprics ; and in this 
Church the thing has been the same. Some of my 
best friends in the ministry have been men who 
professed the Calvinistic doctrine to the extreme, 
men who believed in absolute predestination. And 
who were these Calvinistic clergy ? There was the 
great Bishop Davenant, a thorough Calvinist. 
Many of them are in the Church of England and 
many in ours. My brother from Virginia knows 
that there have been among that number of men 
holy and good men, both in past ages and in 
the age to which he belongs, and I almost; 
that is to say, Venn, Simeon, Newton, and 
Cecil. These men have been tolerated and recog- 
nized as leaders of religious thought in that Church. 
Now, I would ask one question: Did any one of 
those men ever hesitate to use this baptismal service ? 
Not one. They did not go to the metaphysics of the 
thing as displayed before you this day, very 
learned and able metaphysics about the six or 
seven different ways of interpreting the baptismal 
service, which I heard with a great deal of interest. 



Venn, Simeon, Newton, and Cecil, each of these 
men used that Prayer-Book, used those two prayers 
that are objected to, never made any complaint in 
their lives. I understand my friend from Virginia 
has always been accounted JSvangelical, ai^d so re- 
cognized by everybody. I do not really see 
why he should object to the course of 
proceeding which his brother Evangelicals 
in the Church of England have pursued for all this 
time. I do not see why he should come up and ap- 
peal for freedom for these men. I think they had 
better go back and study the Prayer-Book, do as I 
have suggested, and show some degree of the robust 
common-sense of the great spiritual stature that be- 
longs to my friend from Virginia. 

I say, then, that I do not believe there is any 
necessity at all for the passing of these resolutions. 
And now I come to another matter. I am, as is 
well known, an old High Church ma,n. I do not 
profess to be broad, or narrow, or long, or any- 
thing of the kind, but an old High Churchman. I 
go on, therefore, to another argument in this cause. 
The proposed relation of these Rubrics is, after 
all, to me a matter of doubtfulness ; that is 
to say, I recognize two schools of thought 
in the religious world at the present 
time, the thought that belongs to m.e, and 
to the Prayer-Book, and to my brethren, that is to 
say, that the Holy Spirit sends forth men into this 
world to preach conversion to the Church, faith 
in God, and then that self -same Holy Spirit has al- 
ways, in this world, a Church of Christ. That is 
my doctrine, and that, I think, is the doctrine of the 
Church. Holding that doctrine, I believe that we are 
converted by the influence of the Holy Spirit ; that 
then being converted, we can go forward and 
be brought into the Church of Christ by that self- 
same Holy Spirit, and be made, as is said in our 
Catechism, heirs of Christ, children of God, and in- 
heritors of the kingdom of heaven. There is an- 
other system, and that is the system of the so-called 
orthodox sects around us, the system which has 
been distinctly professed upon the floor by the dis- 
tinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, that is to 
say, a system that at any time before, or after, or 
during baptism, from the beginning of the life of the 
man, to the end, the Holy Spirit can go forth and 
comfort him, and he is then and there regenerated. 
That system, mark you, was taken up by John Cal- 
vin and was the system of Calvinistic Christianity. 
The doctrine has passed away very much, and the 
system is left merely in the shape in which the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
has professed it. I take it that it is not 
the system of the Church, but at the same time I 
myself respect those who profess that system. It is 
a poor system and a weak system, and you can see 
the difficulty. A person professing that sys- 
tem does not believe in regeneration in 
baptism, does not believe in the sacra- 
ments, believes in nothing but conver- 
sion; that is to say, he believes in his own 
ideas. I have met that system at the West and seen 
it express itself in this way: "What is the use of 
baptism? Is it not the living faith that regenerates 
a man? What is the use of the sacraments? " That 
t system logically and distinctly gets rid of all sacra- 
I mental ordinances and sacramental influences what- 
i soever. 

I went out to Wisconsin under Bishop Kemper. 
I never have had any difficulty with my Baptist 
brethren or any other 'brethren. Why? They say, 
"We know what you mean, we know your opin- 
ions." I tell them in Baptism we are made mem- 
bers of Christ's Church, children of God, and in- 
heritors of the kingdom of heaven. There is no 
difficulty or doubt about it. They understand what 
I mean, and they ask the reason, and I have no 



348 



trouble on the point. My friend from Virginia has 
told of confusion and trouble that divers and sun- 
dry good men have had with Baptists and others 
on this subject. I say I have had no confusion. No 
man who holds the doctrine of the Church in regard to 
the sacraments need have any confusion whatso- 
ever with Baptists, Methodists, or any one else, 
simply because we put ourselves at once upon the 
ground, "This is the doctrine of the Church: in 
my baptism I a,m made a member of Christ, a child 
of God, an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, and 
you hold by conversion coming at any time you 
please, when a man begins life, when he is 
in the middle of life, when he is at 
the end of it, his conversion may come." 
I have been accustomed to say to them, 
"If you want confusion, infidelity, uncertainty, 
put yourseK on that system ; but if you believe in 
the Holy Spirit — believe in its influence here upon 
eai-th — you must fully concede, as He has said so, 
that the gift of regeneration may be attached to the 
humble Christian acceptance of the sacrament of 
the baptism." That is my faith, and in that faith 
I find no difficulty. 

I would add one thing more. My brother from 
Virginia spoke thus : 

" One of the greatest minds in the country left our 
ministry solely on account of the Baptismal Ofiice, 
as I had it from his own mouth, and confirmed by 
Bishop McHvaine, who displaced him." 

That is perfectly and entirely true. He did so ; 
and why did he do so ? He had written a book, 
which book is called Theodicy. That book in its es- 
sential elements is simply and entirely the doctrine 
of that old philosopher Pelagius, who, denied orig- 
inal sin and grace in an early century. That 
a distinguished gentleman of great mind 
should leave the Church because of that 
would naturally be expected, for such 
I know is the meaning of that book of his ; and here 
I would say I know not the man personally, but I 
have read his book, and I know that his method of 
vindicating' the ways of God to man is simply that. 

The PRESIDENT. WiU the gentleman give 
way to allow the reception of messages from the 
House of Bishops ? 

Bev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Certainly. 

MESSAG-ES FROM THE BISHOPS. 

A message (No. 76) from the House of Bishops 
announced that that House had concurred in Mes- 
sage No. 67 from the House of Deputies, relating to 
the Joint Committee on the French Prayer-Book ; 
in Message No. 69, relating to the Joint Committee 
on the Spanish Prayer-Book ; in Message No. 70, 
relating to the New York Bible and Common 
Prayer-Book Society ; and in Message No. 71, elect- 
ing trustees of the fund for the relief of widows 
and orphans of deceased clergymen. 

GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

A message (No. 77) from the House of Bishops 
announced that that House had concurred in Mes- 
sage No. 68 from the Hovise of Deputies, relating to 
a commission concerning the number of Trustees of 
the General Theological Seminary, with the follow- 
ing amendment to the resolution : Strike out the 
words " Have an interest in the Seminary," so that 
the sentence will read, "Said Commission having 
power to confer with the several Dioceses, and to 
take such other action as may be necessary." 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that we 
concm* in that amendment. 

The motion was agreed to. 

CANON ON RITUAL. 

A message (No. 78) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution ; 



" Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That instead of the section as passed by the House 
of Deputies, and proposed to be amended by the 
House of Bishops, the following additional section 
be added to Canon 20, Title I., ' Of the Use of the 
Book of Common Prayer,'" [bemg in the same 
words as the report made this morning by Mr. 
Burgwin, of Pittsburgh.] 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Allow me to ask 
v/hether that is in precise accordance with the re- 
port of the Joint Committee of Conference ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I understand it 
to be exactly as proposed by the Committee of Con- 
ference. I, therefore, move that we concur with 
the action of the House of Bishops, and ask that 
the vote be taken as soon as the present speaker has 
concluded his speech. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. In that case, 
the Diocese of Alabama calls for a division by 
orders. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. This motion does 
not say how the vote shall be taken, but leaves it 
open. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the House 
concur in the message just sent by the House of 
Bishops, and that the vote betaken as soon as Dr. 
Adams has concluded. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I made two mo- 
tions. In the first place I moved to concur, and 
then I moved secondly that we take the vote upon 
that motion to concur as soon as the present speech 
is finished. Now, will the Chair please put the 
question on the last motion ? 

The PRESIDENT. That is the question I pro- 
pose to put. It is moved that the vote be taken on 
the motion to concur, immediately after the conclu- 
sion of Rev. Dr. Adams's speech. 

The motion was agreed to. 

OFFICE OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolutions reported by 
the Committee on Canons in regard to the Baptis- 
mal Office are before the House. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Our baptismal 
office contains the doctrine of the incarnation of 
Christ; it contains the doctrine of the crucifixion ; it 
contains the doctrine of the Holy Spirit of God in this 
world so as to regenerate the soul spiritually ; it con- 
tains all the doctrines of Christianity which are most 
important to practical morality, to spiritual growth 
and holiness, and therefore for myself I am against 
touciiing the doctrine of regeneration in baptism as 
it is in our Prayer-Book. 

I would say one thing more, and to my friends of 
the legal profession I think it will be important. 
Any one who goes upon that definite system to 
which I have alluded brings up the words of om^ 
Lord; he shuts out any interpretation that does 
away with them, and he says, " That 
is the Scriptural doctrine." Now we 
stand upon the doctrine, and I wish to my 
legal friends in this House, and to those who have a 
legal mind, to put forward the fact that for twelve 
hundred years after Christ in the Church the text, 
"Except a man be born again he cannot see the 
kingdom of heaven, " was referred to nothing else 
than to baptism. That challenge was brought forward 
by Hooker three hundred years ago. It is renewed by 
Alford and the most eminent clergymen of our 
Church. It is acknowledged by the Lutheran di- 
vines. I think this ought to be couQlusive that the 
doctrine of regeneration is the doctrine of the 
Church. 

One thing more I will say, and it is a critical 
remark in regard to the gentleman who preceded 
me. He said that the Unitarians could use the 
Apostles' Creed. If the Unitarian can believe in 
" Jesus Christ, his only Son," and asseii; that Christ 



349 



is the only Sou of God, be it so ; but I say no Unita- 
rian can use the Apostles' Creed, for no Unitarian 
can honestly believe that Chi'ist our Lord is the only 
Son of God. 

Now I have one or two remarks more to make. 
This gentleman appealed to our blunder with re- 
gard to "the descent into hell." I say "our blun- 
der;" that is to say, the blunder of our Church; and 
a very stupid blunder it was. It was because the 
Chui'ch in the United States in revising her 
Prayer-Book simply gave permission to 
omit a whole article of the Apostles' Creed, 
and the same Church comes in and in the Confirma- 
tion Semace brings a man forward to that Church 
and says, " You beheve in all the articles of the 
Apostles' Creed?" It was a most extraordinary 
blimder. She brings a nian up to be confirmed 
on the ground of his belief in all the Articles 
when she has permitted him to omit one. I 
do not believe in the infallibity of this Church. I 
believe, as my Mother Church of England has be- 
lieved, that national and particular churches may 
err; the Churches of Rome and of Antioch have 
erred ; and also she admits the possibility of a mis- 
take on the part of the Church of England. I believe 
this Church has made a blunder in tlaat respect. 
Both my distinguished friends ha.ve appealed to 
that blunder. As we blundered in reference to the 
Apostles' Creed, as we made a mistake there, there- 
fore, say they, blunder in regard to this I I hope 
that this Convention will make no such mistake. 
That is the argument. I am not sufficiently a logi- 
cian to state it, but the argument that two bhmders 
make a thing right wiU hardly be adopted by this 
Convention ! 

I thank this Rouse most sincerely for being v/ill- 
ing to :hear me. These American people are in- 
clined to politics. Everybody knows it, and I think 
it is a benevolent tendency. I believe very much 
in parties in the State. I do not believe in parties 
in the Church. What do you do if you pass 
this ? You simply organize these five hundred gen- 
tlemen into a party, the famous five hundred. I wish 
I knew all the names of the famous five hundi-ed, 
who, if this motion of these two distinguished 
gentlemen passes, will have the liberty of omitting 
the exhortation preceding the Lord's Prayer, and 
also omitting the Thanksgiving following it. They 
will be that party, and then the mass of the Church 
will be the other party. I do object, most sin- 
cerely and earnestly, to this Convention going into 
the organizing of any such party by the passing of 
these resolutions. 

And with regard to this matter I end, as my dis- 
tinguished friend from Massachusetts began.' He 
came to bury these resolutions. I am glad that he 
felt that they were dead. Unquestionably they 
are dead, and I hope that no vote of this House will 
try to galvanize them and restore them to a life, 
which life, if it is given to them, will deny the 
truth of the Gospel, will uphold Bishop Cheney, will 
destroy all the practical effect, and it is great, of 
our doctrine of baptism upon our wives, our chil- 
dren, and ourselves, and will organize a party, 
which party wiU give trouble from end to end in 
this Church. 

I have only to thank yourself, Mr. President, and 
gentlemen, for the patience with which you have 
been willing to hear these remarks, and to say that 
from my heart and soul I fully and entirely believe 
in the Prayer-Book in all respects, and I will not 
see it changed in any way. 

CANON ON RITUAL. 

The PRESIDENT. By the order of the House 
the vote is now to be taken on concurring in the 
message of the House of Bishops upon the additional 
sections to Canon 20 of Title L, being the sections 



on Ritual as reported by the Committee of Confer- 
ence of the two Houses. 

Rev. Dr. BROWN, of Albany. The Diocese of 
Albany asks that the question be taken by Dioceses 
and orders, and for this simple reason : We have 
had serious doubts of the constitutionality of the 
Canon proposed, partly because it provides legisla- 
tion for Ritual by Canon and— 

The PRESIDENT. I do not thmk the question 
can be argued. 

Rev. Dr. BROWN, of Albany. I am not going 
to argue the question. I wish to explain my vote. 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. There are 
many others in the House who would like to have 
an opportunity of explaining their votes. 

Rev. Dr. BROWN, of Albany. The other day, 
sir — [" Order, order !"1 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. If the gentleman 
can explain his vote, there are thi'ee hundred others 
here who will have that right. 

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen must see that this 
thing cannot be continued. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I ask general 
consent to make one remark. ["Question, ques- 
tion "'] ' 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. Will the Sec- 
retary read distinctly those parts that have been 
restored bv the Committee of Conference ? 

The PRESIDENT. He will read the whole dis- 
tinctly. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. I want atten- 
tion called pai-ticularly to those parts. 

The SECRETARY. The resolution to be voted 
on is as follows : 

"Resolved, That instead of the section as passed 
by the House of Deputies, and proposed to be 
amended by the House of Bishops, the f ollowmg 
additional section be added to Canon 20, of 
Title L, 'Of the Use of the Book of Common 
Prayer.' 

"Sec. 2. [1.] If any Bishop have reason to be- 
lieve, or if complaint be made to him in writing, 
by two or more of his Presbyters, that 
within his jurisdiction ceremonies or practices not 
ordained or authorized in the Book of Common 
Prayer, and setting forth or symbolizing erroneous 
or doubtful doctrines, have been introduced by any 
minister during the celebration of the Holy Com- 
munion (such as , TT T 

"a. The elevation of the elements in the Holy 
Communion in such manner as to expose them to 
the view of the people as objects towards which 
adoration is to be made ; 

"6. Any act of adoration of or towards the 
elements in the Holy Communion, such as bowings 
prostrations, or genuflections ; and 

"c. All other like acts, not authorized or al- 
lowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Common 
Prayer.) 

" It shall be the duty of such Bishop to summon 
the Standing Committee as his council of advice, 
and with them to investigate the matter. 

"[2.] If after investigation it shall appear to the 
Bishop and the Standing Committee that ceremo- 
nies and practices not ordained or authorized as 
aforesaid, and setting forth or sjonbolizing errone- 
ous or doubtful doctrines, have, in fact, been 
introduced as aforesaid, it shall be the 
duty of the Bishop, by instrument of 
writing, under his hand, to admonish the minister 
so offending to discontinue such practices or cere- 
monies ; and if the minister shall disregard such 
admonition, it shall be the duty ®f the Standing 
Committee to cause him to be tried for a breach of 
his ordination vow. Provided, that nothing hereui 
contained shall prevent the presentment, trial, and 
punishment of any minister under the provisions of 
Section 1, of Canon 2, Title XL, of the Digest. 



350 



*' [3.] In all investigations under the provisions of 
this Canon the minister whose acts or practices are 
the subject-matter of the investigation shall be noti- 
fied and have opportunity to be heard in his defence. 
The chai-ges preferred and the findings of the Bishop 
and Standing Committee shall be in writing, and a 
record shall be kept of the proceedings in the case." 

The Secretary announced the result of the vote as 
follows : 

Clerical Vote — 41 Dioceses represented; ayes 
38, noes 2, divided 1. 

Lay Vote— 31 Dioceses represented ; ayes 28, noes 
1, divided 2. 

The vote in detail is as follows : 

CLERGY. 

Alabama. — Rev. Dr. Banister, Rev. Dr. String- 
fellow, and Rev. Dr. Fulton, aye. 

Albany.— Re-v. Dr. Payne, Rev. Dr. Tucker, and 
Rev. Dr. Brown, nay. 

Arkansa.s. — Rev. Mr. Trimble and Rev. Mr. 
Bruce, aye. 

California. — Rev. Mr. Birdsail, Rev. Mr. Chet- 
wood. Rev. Mr. Easton, and Rev. Mr. Githens, aye. 

CenfraJ New York. — Rev. Dr. Van Deusen, Rev. 
Dr. "Wilson, and Rev. Mr. Hitchcock, aye. Rev. Dr. 
Ayrauit, nay. 

Central Pennsylvania, — Rev. Dr. Paret, Rev. Dr. 
Breck, Rev. Mr. Marple, Rev. Mr. Leverett, aye. 

Connecticut. — Rev. Dr. Meade, Rev. Dr. Beards- 
ley, Rev. Mr. Johnson, and Rev. Dr. Clark, aye. 

Deleivare. — Rev. Mr. Spencer, Rev. Mr. Stone, and 
Rev. Mr. Douglass, aye. 

Easton. — Rev. Mr. Barber, Rev. Dr. Stearns, Rev. 
Dr. Crosdale. and Rev. Dr. Fulton, aye. 

Florida. — Rev. Mr. Thackara, aye.'' 

Georgia.— Re^. Mr. Rees, Rev. Mr. Clarke, Rev. 
Dr. Vfilliams, and Rev. Dr. Benedict, aye. 

Illinois. — Rev. Dr. Chase, Rev. Dr. Corbett, and 
Rev. Mr. Gregg, aye. Rev. Mr. Knowles, nay. 

Indiana. — Rev. Mr. Roberts and Rev. Mr. Dun- 
ham, nay. 

lowa.—Uev. Mr. Mcllwain and Rev. Mr. Good- 
hue, aye. 

Kansas. — Rev. Dr. Reynolds, Rev. Mr. Bake- 
well, and Rev. Mr. Beatty, aye. 

Kentucky.— Rev. Dr. Craik, Rev. Dr. Perkins, 
and Rev. Mr. Sbipman, aye. 

Long Island. — Rev. Dr. Hall, Rev. Dr. Schenck, 
Rev. Dr. Diller, and Rev. Dr. Hasldns, aye. 

Louisiana.— Rey^. Mr. Adams, Rev. Mr. Girault, 
Rev. Mr. Harris, and Rev. Dr. Dalzell, ave. 

Maine.— Rev. Mr. Leffingwell, Rev. Mr. Upjohn, 
Rev. Mr. Ward, and Rev. Dr. Pise, aye. 

Maryland.— Rer. Dr. Hutton, Rev. Dr. Lewin, 
Rev. Dr. Leeds, and Rev. Dr. Dudley, aye. 

Massachusetts.— Rev. Dr. Vinton, Rev. Dr. Hun- 
tington, Rev. Dr. Burgess, and Rev. Dr. Lambert, — 

Michigan.— ReY. Mr. Gillespie, Rev. Mr. Brown, 
Rev. Mr. Earp, and Rev. Mr. Worthington, aye. 

Minnesota.— ReY. Dr. McMasters, Rev. Dr. Kid- 
ney, and Rev. Dr. Knickerbacker, aye. 

Mississij)pi.— ReY. Dr. Crane, Rev. Dr. Sansom, 
Rev. M. Douglas, and Rev. Mr. Marks, aye. 

Jfissourl— Rev. Dr. Runcie, Rev. Dr. Berkley, 
and Rev. Mr. Jennings, aye. 

Nebraska.— ReY. Mr. Shaw and Rev. Mr. Talbot, 
aye. 

New Hampshire.— Rev. Dr. Hubbard and Rev. 
Dr. Herrick, aye. 

Neiv Jersey.— P.ev. Dr. Famngton, Rev. Dr. 
Abercrombie, and Rev. Dr. Clark, aye. 

New York.— ReY. Dr. Cooke, Rev. Dr. Beach, 
Rev. Dr. Cady, and Rev. Dr. Geer, aye. 

North Carolina.— ReY. Dr. Watson, Rev. Dr. 
Smedes, Rev. Mr. Huske, and Rev. Dr. Buxton, aye. 

Ohio.— ReY. Dr. Burr and Rev. Dr. Eojd, sje. 



Pennsylvania. — Rev. Dr. Rudder, Rev. Mr. Bol- 
ton, and Rev. Dr. Davies, aye. 

Pittsburgh. — Rev. Dr. Scarborough, Rev. Mr. 
Getz, Rev. Mr. Smith, and Rev. Dr. Spalding, aye. 

Rhode Island. — Rev. Mr. Locke, aye. 

South Carolina.. — E.ev. Mr. Pinckney, Rev. Mr. 
Porter, and Rev. Mr. McCullough, aye. 

Tennessee. — Rev. Mr. Gray, Rev. "Dr. Harrison, 
and Rev. Dr. Beckett, aye. 

Texas.— Rev-. Mr. Rogers, Rev. Mr. Richardson, 
and Rev, Mr. Davenport, aye. 

Vermont. — Rev. Dr. Douglass, Rev. Mr. Bliss, 
Rev. Mr. Putnam, and Jtiev. Mr. Atwill, aye. 

Virginia.— ReY. Dr. Andi-ews, Rev. Mr. Hanckel, 
and Rev. Dr. Minnigerode, aye. 

Western New York.— Rev. Dr. Shelton, Rev. Dr. 
Foote, Rev. Dr. Rankine, and Rev. Mr. Mann, aye. 

Wisconsin. — Rev. Dr. Adams and Rev. Mr. Half, 
aye. Rev. Dr. De Koven, nay. 



Albany.— M.V. Meads and Mr. Fors7fth, nay. 

California. — Mr. Webb and Mr. Walsh, aye. 

Central New York.— Mr. Chedell, Mr. McWhor- 
ter, and Mr. Clark, aye. 

Central Pennsylvania. — Mr. Coppd, Mr. Lamber- 
ton, and Mr. Rockwell, aye. 

Connecticut. — Mr. Stark and Mr. Robertson, aye. 

Delaware. — Mr. Fell, aye. 

Easton. — Mr. Goldsborough, aye. 

Georgia. — Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Whittle, and Mr. 
Montgomery, aye. 

Illinois.— Mr. Otis, aye. 

Iowa. — Mr. Daymude, aye. 

Kansas. — Mr. Bartholow, aye. 

Kentucky. — Mr. Stevenson, aye. 

Long Island. — Mr. Pierrepont, Mr. King, and Mr. 
"N"ichol, aye. 

Louisiana. — Mr. Race and Mr. Biscoe, aye. 

Maine. — Mr. Bridge and Mr, Gardiner, aye. 

Maryland. — Mr. Blair, aye. 

Massachusetts. — Mr. Mason, aye. Mr. Shattuck, 
nay. 

Michigan. — ^Mr. Trowbridge, aye. 
Minnesota. — Mr. Wilder, aye. 
Missouri. — Mr. Douglass, aye. 
New Jersey. — Mr, Garthwaite and Mr, MiUs, aye. 
New York. — Mr. Ruggles and Mr. Livingston, 
aye. 

North Carolina. — Mr. De Rosset and Mr. Martin, 
aye. 

Ohio. — Mr. Andrews and Mr. Moss, aye. 

Pennsylvania. — Mr. Harrison, Mr. Welsh, and 
Mr. Coffin, aye. 

Pittsburgh. — Mr. Shoenberger, Mr. Cass, Mr. 
Burgwin, and Mr. Howe, — 

Rhode Island. — Mr. Richmond, Mr. Hoppin, and 
Mr. King, aye. 

South Carolina.— Mr. McCrady and Mr. Smith, 
aye. 

Tennessee. — Mr. ThomiJson, Mr. Stephens, and 
Mr. Fairbanks, aye. 

Virginia.— Mr~ SheSey, Mr. Massie, and Mr. Tay- 
lor, aye. 

Western New York. — Mr. Montgomery, aye. 

Rev. Dr. BEERS, of Albany (when the caU of the 
call of the roll was concluded). I wish to explain 
that I was absent, when th© vote was taken, but 
solely on the ground of its unconstitutionality I vote 
"nay," ["Order." "Order,"] 

The PRESIDENT. Debate is not in order dur- 
ing the taking of the vote. 

The result was then announced as above given. 

The PRESIDENT. This House concurs %vith the 
House of Bishops in the proposed addition to Canon 
30 of Title I. 



351 



OFFICE FOR BAPTISM OF INFANTS. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. I should like 
to ask permission to introduce a resolution in rela- 
tion to the matter under consideration. 

The PRESIDENT. Do you mean the matter just 
voted on ; 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missom-i. No; the Bap- 
tismal question. The only object in asking pei-niis- 
siou now is to save time. 1 move that the order of the 
day now imder consideration, being the resolutions 
on the Baptismal Office, be made the special order of 
the day for Tuesday' morning next at eleven o'clock, 
andthat-the vote be taken at oae o'clock of the same 
day. The object is this : many of the clerical ! 
brethren are about to leave the House to go to their 
parishes. We want them here, and they want to ! 
be here. They cannot be here until about noon on i 
Monday. There is already a special order for two \ 
o'clock on Monday, i 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I object to : 
that. 

Mr. FORSYTH, of Albany. A great many gen- 
tlemen want to go home to vote on Tuesday in this I 
State. They want to exercise that dearest right of j 
freemen. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. We have strong 
hopes that we shall be able to adjourn on Mondav. ! 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. May I call , 
attention to the fact that the advocates of the | 
measure themselves express their conviction that it | 
cannot pass ? Therefore we might as weU come ! 
to a vote, and not hear any more theology dis- | 
cussed. ' I 

Several DEPUTIES. Let us take the vote \ 
now. I 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I move to 
amend that the consideration of the subject be 
deferred until we have acted on the question of 
Rubrical Revision. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I move that we take 
the vote in five minutes on the baptismal question 
while it is fresh in our minds. 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. I understood that a j 
motion to postpone was pending. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Is not that de- 
batable ? 

Mr. BLAIR, of Maryland. No, sir. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The motion, as 
I understood, was that this matter be postponed and ! 
considered in connection with another matter. 

Rev. Mr. BAKEWELL, of Kansas. I rise to a 
point of order. Mr. Jennings has the floor, and if 
he has not, I think I have it. 

The PRESIDENT. I decided that Mr. Jennings 
had the floor. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. My substitute over- 
rides the who'e of that. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Long 
Island did not have the floor to make his motion. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missom i. K the debate j 
is to go on, I claim the iioor. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. If the gentleman will 
yield the floor, I will move that the vote be taken in 
five minutes. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I think there is 
something else to be said. I do not think a layman 
has had five minutes yet on this question. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missom'i. If it is the 
pleasure of the House to go on with the argument, I 
shall be very happy to proceed. 

Mr. President and gentlemen, the approaches to 
this subject have been made with the most masterly ! 
generalship and in the shrewdest manner, so as to , 
put it before this Convention and the Church at large | 
in its most favorable attitude. Now, sii', leaving to | 
others to turn the flanks, I propose to move upon [ 
the centre. 

This movement should be arrested— first, because I 



it strikes down the doctrine of our Prayer-Book 
upon the Sacrament of Baptism. Why, look you 
at the Baptismal Oflice itself. It opens by pro- 
nouncing that the child needs that wiiich by nature 
it cannot have, and then it proceeds to praj^er for 
that, and then it proceeds to assure all the parties 
that the Lord, ior His part, is ready faithfully 
to do the thing desired, wished, and prayed 
for ; and when the act of baptism it- 
self is accomphshed, then this resolution 
proposes that the minister shall be at liberty to say 
that the thing has not been done that was "prayed 
for, that the necessity which was indicated in "the 
first instance does not exist, and therefore the Lord 
has not been faithful to His promise, and there is 
nothing to thank Him for ! I say, sir, that is a 
strilfloig down of the doctrine of the Church itself 
in the Baptismal Office ; and if that is not the doc- 
trine of the Church in the Baptismal Ofiice, there 
would, be no desire for the alternate prayer. 

It is but the entering of the wedge, for logical 
consistency will require that in a very few years 
this same movement take a still further advance call- 
ing for the blotting out of the Catechism, wherein 
the child is taught to say that in baptism he was 
made a member of Christ, a child of God, and 
an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. 
So in the Confirmation Office ; so also in the Twenty- 
seventh Article ; so also with that definition in the 
Catechism, wherein it is most explicitly stated that 
the outward and visible sign of water in baptism is 
the means ordained by Christ himself for the cou- 
vejdng of the inward and spiritual grace. That is 
the doctrine of the Church, and you propose to let 
a man stand at the very threshold and virtually 
deny that that is the doctrine of the Church. 

But, in the second place, the movement is to be 
arrested — and a more serious reason this is — because 
it trenches upon the very nature of the Chm-ch her- 
self. Now to come to any proper appreciation of 
the natm-e of the Church, we must fall back upon 
the incarnation of our Lord, from the Immaculate 
Conception by the power of the Holy Ghost inward 
through all the unfolding of that mystery, until the 
glorification of Christ in our nature at the right 
hand of the Father. There were just such 
movements of : incarnation as breaking the 
hmitations of this natural state, rising above 
them, transcending- them, finally carried our nature 
redeemed to the right hand of the Father in the 
person of the incarnation of the Son. Mark that, 
our nature redeemed in His person went up to the 
right hand of the Father. Thus was our Lord con- 
stituted ''the second Adam," the head of the new 
humanity, the fountain source of a new and higher 
order of life. Therefore the descent of the Holy 
Ghost on the Bay of Pentecost, to bi ing down that 
Divine-human fight and impart it to the Apostles, 
and they proclaimed the Gospel of Chiist, they re- 
ceived men into the organism, constituted by 
the down-coming of the Holy Ghost, in 
imparting the Divine-human light of the 
glorified Christ. . How ^ By baptism. When 
those three thousand asked the Apostles in concern 
what they should do to come into this new hu- 
manity, into this redeemed condition, the response 
was simply " You should be baptized, every one of 
you, in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remis- 
sion of sin, and you shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Ghost by baptism ; you shall be incorporated 
into this new creation, this supernatural constitu- 
tion of grace that has come down from heaven 
and been constituted here and now by the descent 
of the Spirit of God. 

The PRESIDENT. The tune for the recess has 
arrived, and the House takes a recess for half an 
hour. 

The session was resumed at two o'clock p.m. 



352 



COMMITTEE SERVICE. 

The PRESIDENT appointed as the commission on 
the part of the House of Deputies to suggest legisla- 
tion to secure the more eflBcient government of the 
Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Hall, of Long 
Island; Rev. Dr. Beach, of New York; Mr. Welsh, 
of Pennsvlvania, and Mr. Livingston, of New York. 

The PRESIDENT appointed Rev. Wilham T. 
Webbe on the Joint Committee in charge of the ste- 
reotype plates of the standard Prayer-Book, in place 
of Rev. M. A. DeWolfe Howe, D.D., now a Bishop. 

The PRESIDENT appointed, as members of the 
Joint Committee on Deaconesses, on the part of the 
House of Deputies, Rev. Dr. Hxmtington, of Massa- 
chusetts ; Rev. Mr. Garrison, of New Jereey ; Rev. 
Dr. Davies, of Pennsylvania ; Mr. Welsh, of Penn- 
sylvania ; Mr. Blanchard, of Maryland, and Mr. 
Parker, of New Jersey. 

TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I move that 
the Secretary be instructed to transmit the testi- 
monials of the Missionary Bishops-elect to the 
House of Bishops. 

The motion was agreed to. 

CANON OF CHURCH MUSIC. 

A message (No. 79) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced the adoption by that House of the follow- 
ing resolution : 

"Resolved, That this House does not concur in 
the amendment proposed in Message No. 63 from 
the House of Deputies, relating to a Canon of 
Church Music, for the reason that it desires to 
retain the provisions of the resolution in- 
tended to be incorporated in the Canon, and 
respectfully asks for a Committee of Conference ; 
and the House of Bishops informs the House of Dep- 
uties that it has appointed as such Committee of 
Conference on its own part the Bishops of Rhode 
Island, Albany, and Central New York." 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move that a Committee 
of Conference be appointed on the part of this 
House. 

The motion was agreed to, and the President 
appointed Rev^. Dr. Benedict, of G^eorgia, Rev. Dr. 
Andrews, of Virginia, and Mr. Otis, of Illinois, as 
the Committee on the part of the House of Depu- 
ties. 

PROVISION FOR THE EPISCOPATE. 

The following message (No, 80) was received from 
the House of Bishops : 

"The House of Bishops does not concur in mes- 
sage No. 65 from the House of Deputies proposing 
an amendment to Article 5 of the Constitution as to 
a suitable provision for the Episcopate, as at this 
late period of the session it has not suflBcient time to 
consider the subject," 

Rev. Dr, HALL, of Long Island, I think it may 
be well to caU attention to the fact, that the lateness 
of the session would hardly be the reason anticipated 
by the Constitution. There ought to be reasons ob- 
jectiag to the article itseK. 

The PRESIDENT, That reason is given very 
often. The same thing has been done many times. 

MISSIONARY DISTRICTS. 

A message (No. 81) was received from the House 
of Bishops as follows : 

" The House of Bishops informs the House of De- 
puties that it concurs in Message No. 66 from the 
House of Deputies relating to an amendment of Ar- 
ticle 5 of the Constitution as to constituting a Mis- 
sionary district in an organized Diocese, " 

REPORTS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON CANONS 

Rev, Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina, submitted 



the following reports from the Committee on Ca- 
nons, which were placed on the Calendar : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred 
: Message No. 40, from the House of Bishops, propos- 
' ing an amendment to Canon 2, of Title II, of the 
I Digest, so as to empower a Bishop, under certain 
I circumstances, to inhibit a minister before his be- 
} ing tried or convicted, respectfully report that they 
I have considered the same, and recommend that the 
House do not concur with the House of Bishops in 
such amendment as expressed in the following reso- 
lution : 

"Resolved, That this House do not concur witli 
the House of. Bishops in the amendment to Canon 2, 
Title II., proposed to this House in Message No. 40, 
and relating to the inhibition of an accused min- 
ister. " 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom was refer- 
red Message No. 41 from the House of Bishops, re- 
spectfully report that the message above mentioned 
contains' the action of the House of Bishops in 
amending Clause [1], of Section 17, of Canon 13, of 
Title I., relating to the convening of the House of 
I Bishops, but is not in the form required by Canon 
2, of Title IV. The Committice, therefore, recom- 
mend the adoption of the following resolution, 
which is virtually a concurrence with the action of 
the House of Bishops, but conforms to the provisions 
of the Canon : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That Clause [1], of Section 17, of Canon 13, of Title 
i I., is hereby amended by the insertion of the words : 
' On the written request of twelve members to the 
same, ' after the word ' shall, ' in the sixth line, so as 
to read as follows : 

"Sec. 17. [1.] If during the recess of the Gen- 
eral Convention, and more than six months previous 
to its session, any vacancy arise, either by death, 
resignation, or other cause, in the office of any Mis- 
sionary Bishop of this Church (whether domestic or 
foreign), the House of Bishops shall, on the written 
request of twelve members of the same, be convened 
by the Presiding Bishop, or, in case of his death, by 
the Bishop who, according to the rules of the House 
of Bishops, is to preside at the next General Con- 
vention ; and thei'eupon may proceed to fill any and 
every such vacancy that may then exist, by electing 
a suitable person or persons to be a Bishop or Bish- 
ops of this Church, to exercise Episcopal functions 
within the district, place, country, territory, station, 
or jurisdiction, where such vacancy or vacancies 
may exist ; and in case of such election, they shall, 
by the Presiding Bishop, or by some person or per- 
sons specially appointed, communicate th6 fact of 
such election to the Standing Committees of the 
Churches in the different Dioceses; and each Stand- 
ing Committee that shall consent to the proposed 
consecration shall forward the evidence of such 
consent to the Presiding Bishop, or Bishop aforesaid. 
And if the major number of the Standing Commit- 
tees shall consent to the proposed consecration, the 
Presidmg or other Bishop as aforesaid shall forward 
: copies of the evidence of such consent to each Bishop 
of this Church then within the hmits of the United 
States ; and if a ma,jority of such Bishops consent 
to the consecration, the Presiding Bishop or Bishop 
aforesaid, with any two Bishops, or any three Bish- 
ops to whom he may communicate the testimonials, 
may proceed to perform the same." 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was refer- 
red Message No. 42 from the House of Bishops, pro- 
posing an amendment to Clause [2], of Section 2, of 
Canon 13, of Title I., of the Digest, so as to require 
a vote of a majority of all the Bishops entitled to 
seats and votes in the House of Bishops, in order to 
their consent to the consecration of a Bishop-elect, 
"respectfully report that they have considered the 
same, and recommend that the House do not concur 



353 



with the HoiivSe of Bishops iu such amendment, as 
expressed in the following resolution: 

'•Resolved, That this House do not concur with 
the House of Bishops iu the amendment to Section 
■2, of Canon 13, Title I. , proposed to this House in 
Message No. 42, and relating to the consent of the 
House of Bishops to the consecration of Bishops- 
elect. " 

••The Committee on Canons, fco whom was re- 
feri"ed a resolution ' touching the status of Mission- 
ary Bishops, ' etc. , respectfully report that they have 
considered the same, and are of the opinion that no 
action upon that subject would be expedient. They 
therefore recommend the adoption of the following 
resolution : 

•'Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the subject of 
the status of Missionary Bishops," etc. 

'•The Committee on Canons, to whom was re- 
ferred a resolution in regard to the form of cer- 
tificate to be given by Standing Committees to can- 
didates for Holy Orders, respectfully report that 
thoy have considered the same, and are of the opin- 
ion that no action upon the subject would be expe- 
dient. They therefore recommend the adoption 
of the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the subject of 
the testimonials of candidates for Holy Orders." 

"The Committee on Canons, being charged by 
Canon 3 of Title IV. with the duty of appointing, 
at the close of the session, two of their number to 
certify the changes made in the Canons, and to re- 
port the same, v/ith the proper arrangement thereof, 
to the Secretary, acting in connection with two of 
the Committee on Canons of the House of Bishops, 
to be appointed by such Committee, respectfully re- 
port that they have appointed for the abovenamed 
purpose the Rev. Alfred B. Beach, d.d., of New 
fork, and Mr. Hill Burgwin, of Pittsburgh ; and 
they recommend the adoption of the following reso- 
lution : 

■•'Resolved, That information of the appoint- 
ment by the Committee on Canons of this House of 
the Rev. Alfred B. Beach, d.d., and Mr. Hill Burg- 
win, to certify the changes made in the Canons at 
the present session, be sent to the House of Bi- 
shops.' " 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I would 
ask the House to pass upon the resolution appended 
to this last report immediately. It wiU lead, I sup- I 
ix)se, to no debate. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long island. I would re- 
spectfully suggest that, inasmuch as constitutional 
amendments have now been separated from the 
Canons, it would be well also to add the names of 
two members of the Committee on Amendments to 
the Constitution to certify to their part of the work. 
This Committee is a new phase in our history. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. Let the 
resolution go on the Calendar, then. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Probably they 
can find some way of certifying to their part, and 
they may as well be acted on now. ' 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of Long Island. Then I 
move that this resolution pass. 

The resolution was agreed to, 

TIME OF FINAL ADJOURNMENT. 

Rev. Dr. CAD Y, of New York. In behalf of the 
Committee to whom was referred the matter of the 
adjournment of the General Convention, I would 
report that we have made arrangements for the use 
of this Church until half -past five o'clock this after- 
noon. We have also consulted the Secretary of the 
House of Bishops and several Bishops, and they 
agree in thinking that their business can all be dis- 
charged by Monday evening. Therefore the Com- 



mittee recommend the adoption of the following 
I resolution : 

! "Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That this House will adjourn sine die on Monday 
evening, November 2d, after the usual devotional 
services and the reading of the Pastoral Letter." 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The Chairman of 
the Committee has made a formal report. I can 
make an informal one, which is that probably the 
House of Bishops will send down another Bishop 
for our confirmation to-day, and, therefore, it is 
important that we should remain in session this 
evening as long as possible. 
I Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I move that we ex- 
i tend to-day's session until half -past five o'clock this 
■ afternoon. 

i The motion was agreed to. 

I The PRESIDENT. The question is on the reso- 
I lution to adjourn sine die on Monday evening after 
j devotional services and hearing the Pastoral Letter, 
i The resolution was agreed to. 

OFFICE OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

The House resumed the consideration of the re- 
I port of the Committee on Canons, on the Baiotismal 
i Office. 

i Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I beg leave to 
i introduce a motion that this question be deferred. 
I The PRESIDENT. I do not think that motion 
I can be received except with the consent of the gen- 
i tleman from Missouri (Rev. Mr. Jenning-s), who was 
' addressing the House when we took the recess. 
I Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Will the gentle- 
I man give his consent to the introdTiction of this mo- 
i tion ? 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. I am not 
willing to have anything interjected into this dis- 
cussion. 

The PRESIDENT. Then you will proceed. 
You have ten minutes left. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. Resummg 
the thread of argument, are we to regard the 
Church as a heap of sand, a mechanical aggrega- 
tion of individuals ? Is it not an organism vital in 
the power of the Holy Ghost, having one common 
life, with Christ its head, and that derived directly 
from Him by the power of the Holy Ghost i 
Is it nothing for a man to pass from the world into 
such a state of things as this ? If a man goes into 
a masonic lodge, he goes into an organism, 
and his initiation into it is a partaking of 
its life, and thereafter, under a normal de- 
velopment, he may expect to become a 
mature mason. If a foreigner comes to this coun- 
tiy and is naturalized, the naturalization engrafts 
him into our body corporate and makes him, jpso 
facto, a partaker of its life. Thereafter the normal 
process of things will develop that man into a thoi-- 
ough American citizen, instinct with American 
feeling, permeated with American principle. If 
this be ti'ue in merely human organ- 
izations, certainly it is just as true 
of the supernatural constitution of this 
great organism from Heaven. It takes 
a child or a man, and engrafting him into itself, 
I thereby it separates him from the kingdom of Sa- 
; tan and darlmess and death, and receiver him into 
I the kingdom of grace, incorporates him into the 
j body of Christ, and makes him a partaker of the 
I life common to the head and to the body. Now, 
I the normal procedure afterwards, though it may 
i be avoided in a thousand ways, will be the building 
I up on that foundation, by the power of the 
I Holy Ghost, of a supernatural, " saintly char- 
I -ac'e *' ard yet you will allow by these resolutions 
I the Presbyter or Minister to stand at the very 
font itself, and deny the intrinsic, essential nature 
' of the Church, deny what the Jews all believed 



354 



when the Gentile came from the outside world into 
the Jewish commonwealth by baptism and circum- 
<.-ision, that ho thereby Avas regenerate. That was 
the very technical term used, and it passed over 
very naturally to the Church. Yet you would allow 
the minister standing up at the font to deny it all. 
Brethren, the Church knows her own nature, and 
she knows that the minister in baptism has no right 
to speak -his own individual sentiments, but that he 
is her minister speaking in her name, and has no 
light to speak any other words than she authorizes 
and instructs him to speak. 

Now, a third reason why we must arrest this 
movement forthwith— and I must pass over these 
l)oints very briefly— is that it would emasculate the 
Apostles' Creed. It mangles it and tears out of it 
one of its most precious articles. Brethren, that 
Creed is the absolute faith itself and not a series of 
human opinions gathered together, made up after 
study and reflection upon the NewTestament,f or gen- 
erally it came into being before the New Testament 
began to be written. That Creed was simply the 
Church, conscious of the mystery of the incarna- 
tion and her part therein, gazing with the eye of 
faith upon the evolving of that mystery, and recit- 
ing its glorious facts. In that Creed she goes through 
the proofs of the incarnation up to the point 
of the glorification of our redeemed himaanity 
in the person of her Lord. Thereupon, by a 
logic of faith, she proceeds in the Creed 
to recite the coming down of the Holy 
Ghost to make over that Divine-human 
law, that revealed humanity, to men on the day of 
Pentecost. Thereupon, proceeding from that, she 
proceeds to recite, "I believe in the Holy Catholic 
Church." You see how it was constituted then, and 
from the body of Christ, by the down-coming of 
the Holy Ghost on that Pentecostal day. Instantly 
after that: "I believe in the conmiunion of 
saints ; the forgiveness of sins " — to be had only in 
the Church, as all benefits of American citizenship 
are to be had only in that citizenship, within that 
comitry, as all benefits that may be supposed to be- 
long to the masonic lodge, if you please, are to be 
had only by virtue of membership in it. So "I 
believe in the lorgiveness of sins," because it is in 
the Church that we obtain this, the initial point, in 
the innumerable benefits of Christ's redemption. 
And so the Creed goes on culminating in "the 
resm-rection of the body and the life everlasting." 
You must remember, brethren, that this article of 
the Creed was exemplified and explained, if explan- 
ation were necessary, in the Creed of the Council of 
Nicaea — "I beheve in one baptism for the remission 
of sins." If there could be any possible question as 
to the meaning of that phrase in the Apostles' 
Greed, the corresponding phrase in the Nicene 
Creed settles it. 

Now, brethren, to trouble you and take your time 
at this supreme moment no further, let me say that 
the hour has struck. The bringing in of these reso- 
lutions by the Committee on Canons is the alarm- 
l)ell ringing that the conflict is upon us. It is a con- 
flict between rationalism and supernaturalism. 
Where shall we stand ? Is there any uncertainty ? 
Are we going to break away all the barriers ? We 
will fling the banner to the breeze, and we will by 
an emphatic vote bury this proposition beyond the 
possibility of resurrection. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. Mr. President and 
gentlemen of the Convention, I do not intend to 
touch upon the theology connected with this ques- 
tion. As a layman I do not think that my prov- 
ince, but as a layman I do think it my province to 
be able to point out some of the practical questions 
connected with the subject. 

Now, sir, the first one that is prese ated to my 
mind is this: That here, for almost the first time in 



I two hundred years, we are seriously considering the 
j alteration of a f undkmcutal doctrine of this Church. 
I It has surprised and astonished me to hear state- 
I ments and assertions made here that this proposi- 
j tion to change one word in a Rubric was a trifling 
I affair — ^not of any serious consequence, I have been 
I astounded that gentlemen could entertain such an 
, idea ; and even our most respected Com- 
mittee on Canons have said that they do 
I not propose by the change of this 
I word to change the doctrine of the Church. I ca.n- 
not conceive how, by the slightest reflection, gen- 
tlemen can come to that conclusion. What will be 
the consequence of changing that word ? Suppose 
it possible that this Church can, at this stage of the 
I world, change this word in that Rubric, where shall 
we then stand, and to what will it lead ? I maintain 
that it is the initial edge of that wedge which, 
although it may not be intended, yet will inevitably 
have the effect of sphtting that doctrine which has 
stood so many centuries. 

Now, let me point out what appears to me to be 
some of the consequences of an act of this kind. 
Suppose we do adopt it, and it finally becomes a 
law, what follows as an inevitable consequence of 
this thin edge of the wedge ? The wedge must in- 
evitably be driven home, and in this way. We 
must alter the Rubric prescribing that in 
the Catechism of the Church the clergy 
must teach the doctrine as it is laid down 
by the Church. Either the doctrine is altered 
or they must by the Rubric of the Catechism teach 
the doctrine, and what follows? What is the next 
step in driving the wedge? I maintain the next step 
will be the absolute necessity of altering the ordin- 
ation vow, for can a minister come forward and 
take the ordination vow to teach the doctrines of 
the Church, when he has by permission of the 
Church the authority to omit teaching that doc- 
trine? I trow not, sir. 

These are two consequences. There have been 
others pointed out by the clerical gentleman from 
Missouri; but these inevitable consequences might 
be multiplied almost indefinitely. If such a thing 
is possible in one case, it is possible in others. 
Suppose for a moment that the word " shall" in the 
Rubrics of our Church should be changed to the 
word "may," wherever it occm's. I ask you, gen- 
tlemen, whether the natural consequence of that 
would not be that we could invite most cordially 
and legitimately the Reformed Episcopal Church 
! and its Prayer-Book to come into union with this 
! Church ? It seems to me that follows as a natural 
I consequence, just as we know when the sun sets 

that it wiU rise. 
1 I will not say a word upon the doctrine itself, be- 
1 cause I suppose that every man here concedes the 
fact that this term " regenerate " does in some sense 
I absolutely show the correct doctrine of the Church. 
! I will only say in reference to it that if there is any 
j doctrine of our Church that is proved by Scripture 
I and that is plainly set f oii;h in our Liturgy, it is this 
I doctrine, sanctioned, as it has been, by the most 
I remarkable testimony that it is possible to de- 
j duce in reference to any doctrine of this Church. 
I When our Divine Lord established this ordinance, 
I He not only did it by precept, but what did he do ? 

He did it by example. He submitted to the ordi- 
I nance Himself, and what occurred virtually ? The 
heavens opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon 
Him like a dove. What did all that signify ? Did 
it not signify what is traced in the language of our 
doctrines and our Catechism, that baptism is "the 
outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual 
grace " ? What is plainer ? 

I do trust that on this occasion we shall give such 
an emphatic denial to this proposition that it will 



355 



be buried beyond the hope of resurrection, beyond 
the expectation of any i-esurrection. 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky, obtained the 
fioor. 

N Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. Will the gen- 
tleman allow me to move that after his speech the 
vote be taken ? 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I simply 
rise to renew the motion which I have made several 
times, though it seems it was out of order before, 
that the further consideration of this subject be de- 
ferred until after action upon the resolution for a 
Rubrical Commission ; and I do this with a view to 
the refeiTing of this question to that Committee. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Is that motion 
debatable ? 

The PRESIDENT. The motion is open to de- 
bate. 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I will put it 
then in this form, that this question be laid on the 
table imtil after action on the Rubrical Commission, 
to be then referred to that Commission. 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. I move as an 
amendment to that to take the question without 
further debate. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. The motion to 
lay on the table is not debatable. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I understand 
the motion is to lay on the table. The gentleman 
merely gives information of his desire. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The motion to 
lay on the table is not debatable, but a motion to 
lay on the table with a circumstance is debatable. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The motion is to 
lay on the table. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Until after the 
Rubrical Commission is appointed. 

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentuclry. I moved to 
lay it on the table, and I stated the end I had in viev/ 
in making the motion. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move to lay on 
the table. 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. Can that mo- 
tion be amended ? 

The PRESIDENT. It cannot. 

Rev. Mr. BAKEWELL, of Kansas. Is it not in 
order for the gentleman who makes this motion to 
allow me to make a statement to the House ^ 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania has made the motion, and does not listen to 
any appeal to withdraw it. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I have no right 
to do so. I will now, however, put the motion in 
the proper f Qrm. It is to lay on the table the report 
of the Committee on Canon No. 18. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. A vote in 
the aflBmiative puts the whole matter on the table, I 
believe ? 

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir. 

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. And a 
vote in the negative refuses so to dispose of the 
matter ? 

The PRESIDENT. I am requested to state what 
will be the effect of laying on the table. Any ques- 
tion may be laid upon the table, and it is subject 
thereafter to be taken uj) at any time at the will of 
the house. If you lay this resolution on the table, 
it may be according to the sense of the House a 
quietus, or it may be taken up at any future time. 
It is the will of the House that will determine its 
ultimate fate. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Allow me to ask 
a question touching this very point. If it is laid on 
the table, what hinders us immediately, as soon as 
the Rubrical Commission is appointed,' from calling 
it up and moving to refer it to that Commission ? 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. We want to 
vote directly on the merits of the question. 



Mr. MEADS, of Albany. If the Houro war.t to 
vote dii-ectly on the merits, let it be on a moticu to 
postpone indefinitely. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the m<> 
tion to lay on the table. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I move that the 
i vote be taken in five minutes. 

j Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. The Dio- 
I cese of Pittsburgh calls for a vote by Dioceses and 
j orders on the main question. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion now is that the 
: House order the vote on the main question to be 
I taken in five minutes, 
j The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President, 
j I have only five minutes, and I intend to use them, 
j because my name has been used in a manner agaiust 
which I utterly protest. It has been circulated in 
I this Convention that I intended to advocate the 
j change of the Rubric wliich has been proposed. I 
I wish explicitly to say that I have been trying all the 
i morning to speak against it. Who are the men 
I that ask this ? Are they men who confess their own 
j troubled minds? Not at all. They are men whc 
\ say: " Oh, no; we have no trouble about it.'' 
I Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. I rife to 
; call the gentleman to order. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I hope this will 
not come out of my time. 

Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. I can an- 
swer all that, but I have no time. 
I Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Am I in order. 
I Mr. President ? 

j The PRESIDENT. I cannot understand how 

j you are out of order as yet. 

Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. The gen- 
tleman makes a statement which is not altogether 
correct. 

•I Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The men who 
are in favor of this thing now are not the old Evan- 
gelicals who carried the Evangelical banner so no- 
bly. They are not men like the honored represen- 
tative from Massachusetts, nor like the noble 
Deputy from Virginia ; but they are men whos^e 
voices are not heard and whose persons are not 
seen. Who are they ? I say that they are not 
brave men, or they would send" us a petition saying, 
" Our conscience is troubled." 

The Reverend Deputy from Massachusetts has 
appealed to the Gorham case, in which it was decided 
that men could hold the doctrine of Mr. Gorham, 
which is that of the petitioners or of those who are 
petitioned for within the limits of the Church. Now 
it is proposed that the Church shall take that view 
that I am opposed to. 

Again, it has been said, in spite of 
all this, doctrine is not touched. Why, sir, 
the whole Catechism is intended to be swept away, 
and not only the Catechism, but belief in the grace 
of Holy Baptism which that Catechism teaches is to 
be swept away. Although the Reverend Deputy 
from Massachusetts said this morning that after the 
baptism the grace of baptism has been bestowed, and 
therefore it is of no importance what a man says; 
still he would persuade us that it is lawful to deny 
that there has been any grace bestowed, or any- 
thing to be particularly thankful for. If we 
1 can sweep away these things from the 
I Baptismal Office,' after what the Reverend 
Deputy from Massachusetts said this morning, 
I confess that my convictions is that we must sweej) 
away our article of the Nicene Creed, that we must 
sweep away half a dozen sentences from the Holy 
I Scriptures; that we must sweep away the words of 
j our blessed Lord in his dialogue with Nicodemus. 
I I am not surprised that the Deputy has repudia- 
' ted the article of the Bishop as published at the last 



356 



Geaeral Ck>nvention. I really expected three years 
ago that it would be proved by somebody that the 
Bishops had been mistaken. That was done ad- 
mirably by the Deputy from Massachusetts this 
morning ; but I think there is no good reason for 
going further and faring still worse. 

And yet we are told that doctrine is not at all in- 
volved. Why, it strikes at the whole scheme and 
system of doctrine of this Church ; and that must be 
done, forsooth, because men have troubled con- 
sciences ! I think we have some conscience our- 
selves. This thing puts me very much in mind of 
what the Bishop of Alabama — a very witty man — 
once said to a man who could not take the Apostles' 
Ci-eed. Said he, "I cannot take the Apostles' Creed, 
or I would join your Church to-morrow ; I cannot 
swallow it, sir." "Well," said my Bishop, "it 
might be well for you to consider, my friend, 
whether there is not something the matter with 
your swallow, instead of with the Creed." [Laugh- 
ter.] 

As to the Apostolicity and validity of Bishop 
Cummins's sect, I have this to say, that I deny it to 
be in any sense Apostolic; I deny that the first frag- 
ment of Apostolicity belongs to it. If I admit that 
his ordinations may be valid, it is because I admit 
that a man's son is his son, although he may be very 
unlike his father. 

In conclusion, for I have only half a minute of 
my five minutes, this comes to us under the head of 
a tkreat: " Men are waiting to see what we do, in 
order that they may go out." If they are going out 
to Bishop Cummins's schism, by all means let them 
go, and I shall be thankful to the Cummins schism 
for operating on this Church as a blister to which all 
such elements may be di'awn 

Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. The Dio- 
cese of Pittsburgh calls for a vote by Dioceses and 
ordei-s. 

Rev. Mr: BAKEWELL, of Kansas. Are the five 
minutes up ? 

The PRESIDENT. The House has directed the 
vote to be now taken. A vote is called for by Dio- 
ceses and orders. The resolutions, now to be voted 
on will be read for the information of the House. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

"1. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That it be, and hereby is, proposed to add as a Ru- 
bric at the end of the Office for Infant Baptism the 
words following, viz. : 

"The minister may at his discretion omit the 
exhortation preceding the Lord's Prayer in the 
above Office, and in place of the Thanksgiving sub- 
stitute the Collect for Easter Even. This Rubric, 
however, is not to be construed as implying any 
change in the doctrine of the Church. 

"2. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the Secretary of the House of Deputies cause 
the proposed Rubric to be made known to the Dio- 
ceses, as required by the Constitution and Canons." 

The question being taken, resulted as follows : 

Clerical, Vote. — Dioceses represented, 40 : ayes, 
5 ; noes, 34 ; divided, 1. 

Lay Vote.— Dioceses represented, 31 : ayes, 6 ; 
noes, 24 ; divided, 1. 

The vote in detail is as follows : 

CLERGY. 

Alabama.— Rqy. Dr. Siiringfeilow and Rev. Dr. 
Fulton, nay. 

Albany. — Rev. Dr. Boers and Rev. Dr. Brown, 
nay. 

A7^kansas.—Rev. Mr. Trimble and Rev, Mr. 
Bruce, nay. 

C lUfornia. — Rev. Mr. Chetwood and Rev. Mr. 
Githens, nay. 

Central New York. — Rev. Dr. Wilson, Rev, Dr. 
Ayrault, and Rev. Mr, Hitchcock, nay. 



1 Central Pennsylvania, — Rev. Dr. Faret, Rerw 
j Mr. Marple, and Rev. Mr. Leverett, nay. 

Connecticut.— R&v. Mr. Johnson, nay. 

Delaware. — Rev. Mr. Douglass, a.ye. 
I Easton.—RQ\. Dr. Crosdale and Rev. Dr. Fulton, 
! nay. 

Florida.— Hey. Mr. Thackara, nay. 
Georgia. — Rev. Dr. Benedict, aye. Rev. Dr. Wil- 
liams, nay 

Illinois.— Be^r. Dr. Chase, Rev. Dr. Corbett, and 
Rev. Mr. Knowles, nay. 

Indiana. — Rev. Mr. Dunham nay. 

Iowa. — Rev. Mr. Goodhue, nay. 

Kansas.— Rey. Dr. Reynolds and Rev. Mr. Beatty, 
aye; Rev. Mr. Bakewell, nay. 

Kentucky.— Uev. Dr. Perldns, aye. Rev. Dr. 
Craik and Rev. Mr. Shipman, na,j. 

Long Island. — Rev. Dr. Schenck, aye ; Rev. Dr. 
Hall, Rev. Dr. Diller, and Rev. Dr. Haskins, nay. 

Louisiana. — Rev. Mr. Adams, Rev. Mr. Girault, 
Rev. Mr. Harris, and Rev. Dr. Dalzell, nay. 

Maine.— Rev. Mr. Leffingwell, Rev. Mr. Ward, 
and Rev. Dr. Pise, nay. 

Maryland. — Rev. Dr. Lewin, Rev. Dr. Leeds, and 
Rev. Dr. Dudley, nay. 

Massachusetts.— Rev. Dr. Vinton, aye ; Rev. Dr. 
Burgess and Rev. Dr. Lambert, nay. 

Michigan. — Rev. Mr. GiUespie, Rev. Mr. Brown, 
Rev. Mr. Earp, and Rev. Mr. Worthington, nay. 

Minnesota. — Rev. Dr. Knickerbacker, nay. 

Mississippi. — Rev. Dr. Crane, Rev. Dr. Sansom, 
Rev. Mr. Douglass, and Rev. Mr. Marks, nay. 

Missouri.— Rev. Dr. Runcie and Rev. Mr. Jen- 
nings, nay. 

Nebraska. — Rev. Mr. Shaw, nay. 

New Hampshire.— Rev. Dr. Hubbard and Rev. 
Dr. Herrick, nay. 

New Jersey. — Rev. Dr. Clark, aye. Rev. Dr. Far- 
rington and Rev. Dr. Abercrombie, nay. 

New York.— Rev. Dr. Cady and Rev. Dr. Geer, 
nay. 

North Carolina. — Rev. Dr. Watson, Rev. Dr. 
Sraedes, and Rev. Dr. Buxton, nay. 

Ohio.— Rev. Dr. Burr and Rev. Dr. Boyd, aye. 

Pennsylvania. — Rev. Dr. Rudder and Rev. Dr. 
Davies, nay. 

Pittsburgh.— Rev. Dr. Scarborough, Rev. Mr. 
Getz, Rev. Mr. Smith, and Rev. Dr. Spalding, nay. 

Rhode Island.— Rev. Mr. Locke, aye. 

South Carolina. — Rev, Mr. Pinckney, aye. Rev. 
Mr. Porter and Rev. Mr. McCullough,"^nay. 

Texas.— Rev. Mr. Bird, Rev. Mr. Richardson, and 
Rev. Mr. Davenport, nay. 

Vermont— Rev. Dr. Douglass, Rev. Mr. Bliss, and 
Rev. Mr. Putnam, nay. 

Virginia.— Rev. Mr. Hanckel and Rev. Dr. Min- 
nigerode, aye. 

Western New For/?.— Rev. Dr. Foote, Rev. Dr. 
Rankine, and Rev. Mr. Mann, nay, 

Wisconsin.— Rev. Dr. DeKoven, Rev. Dr. Adams, 
Rev. Mr. Haff, and Rev. Mr. Ten Broeck, nay. 

LAITY. 

I Albany.— Mr. Meads, nay. 

j California.— Mr. Webb and Mr. Walsh, nay. 

I Central Neiv York.— Mr. Chedell, Mr. McWhor- 

[ ter, and Mr. Clarke, nay. 

I Connecticut. — Mr. Stark, nay. 

I Delaware. — Mr. Fell, aye. 

i Easto}i.— Mr. Goldsborough, nay. 

j Georgia. — Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Whittle, aye. 

Illinois. — Mr. Otis and Mr. Whitehouse, nay. 

Kansas. — Mr. Bartholow, aye. 

Kentucky. — Mr. Stephenson, aye. 

Long Island. — Mr. Pierrepont, Mr. King, and Mr. 
Nicholi, nay. 

Louisiana. — Mr. Race, nay. 

Maryland.— Mr. Blair, nay. 



357 



MassacJiusetts.—ilr. Mason and Mr. Shattiick, 
nay". 

Michigan. — Mi\ Trowbridge, nay. 
Minnesota. — Mr. Wilder, nay. 
Missouri. — Mr. Douglass, nay. 
New Jersey. — Mr. Garthwaite and Mr. Meigs, 
nay. 

New York. — Mr. Ruggles and Mr. Livingston, 
nay. 

North Carolina.— Mr. De Rosset and Mr. Martin, 
nay. 

Ohio. — Mr. Andrews, aye. Mr. Moss, nay. 

Pennsylvania. — Mr. Welsh, nay. 

Pittsburgh. — Mr. Slioenberger, Mr. Cats, and Mr. 
Burgwin, nay. Mr. Howe, aye. 

Rhode Island. — Mr. Hoppin and Mr. King, aye. 
Mr. Richmond, nay. 

South Carolina. — Mr. McCrady and Mr. Smith, 
nay. 

Tennessee.— Mr. Fairbanks, nay. 
Vermont. — Mr. Canfleld, nay. 
Virginia. — Mr. Sheffey, Mr. Massie, and Mr. Tay- 
lor, aye. 

Western New York. — Mr. Montgomery, nay. 
Wisconsin. — Mr. Clark, nay. 
So the resolutions were rejected. 

THE NEW HTMNAL. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I should like, 
with consent, to offer a resolution that I think will 
excite no debate. I can only apologize that it 
seems on this unfortunate Hymnal we get more and 
more into trouble, but I think this is the last tinker- 
ing with it. I offer the following resolution : 

"Whereas, some tjrpographical and literary mis- 
takes have been fomid in the Revised Hymnal, and 
also in the printed schedule of the changes re- 
ported by the Committee on the Hymnal ; therefore, 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the trustees of the fund for the relief of the 
widows of deceased clergjonan, and of aged, infirm, 
and disabled clergymen, be authorized to correct 
the Hymnal now to be printed, so as to make it ac- 
curate and conform to the standard edition pre- 
pared for the Bishops, with such changes as were 
intended by the said Committee on the Hymnal. " 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I would ask the 
reverend doctor who makes that motion what he 
means by "such changes as were intended by the 
committee"? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Those that 
were upon the separate paper which was put in the 
pews. About forty of those, I can explain, were a 
word here and a letter there, all mentioned on the 
paper. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. What I mean is this : 
Is there any written or printed memorandum of the 
intention of the Committee ? If there be not, I am 
opposed to giving an unlimited license to the Com- 
mittee or any one else. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. They do not 
want an unlimited license. They only want the 
things that were printed to be in the book. I have 
in my hand three papers. Scrupulous members were 
anxious, and at the time, not having them in my 
hand, the question was raised what was meant. It 
was these papers which vs^ere printed. 

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. Allow me to 
correct that slightly. It is very important that the 
House should understand this. The printed schedule 
was in some instances incorrect, as intone or two in- 
stances it says, "In Prayer-Book," when it meant 
" In Hymnal," and there is one instance where they 
say, "In Hymnal," when it intended "In Prayer- 
Book." In that case there is caU for the reprinting 
of a hymn. We have the hymn in two forms. 
Unless this resolution is adopted you will have the 
hymn^with two verses, and you will have the hymn 



' differently as printed in the Hymnal. These are 
clerical mistakes. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I ask that the res- 
I olution be again read, that we may understand it 
: exactly. 

; The PRESIDENT, The resolution will be read, 
i The Secretary read the resolution. 
I Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move to strike 
j out the last clause so as to confine it to the correc- 
I tion of literary and typographical errors, 
I Rev. Dr, HALL, of Long Island, If the resolu- 
I tion is to be amended, it is better that it should go 
I on the Calendar. If left as it is, I suppose it would 
I get these gentlemen out of a very great difficulty 
! without altering the character as to doctrine or the 
I literary character of the Hymnal. 
I Rev. Dr. GEER, of New York. This is an im- 
portant matter, because it is known that, as soon as 
this Hymnal is before the Church, there will be 
j from all quarters suggestions in regard to what are 
deemed minor alterations. There were alterations 
! before which caused a great deal of trouble, and it 
was stated in the Church papers that the alterations 
were made by authority, and public announcement 
was made in the services that such alterations had 
been made, but by what authority was unknown to 
the Committee. I therefore believe that the objec- 
tion raised bv Judge Sheffey is quite important. 
The PRESIDENT. The resolution goes on the 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
suggest that these words Jpe added : 

"Provided, however. That no other than clerical 
and typographical errors be corrected." 

That would cover it. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move that the 
resolution just offered by the Clerical Deputy from 
Long Island be committed to a Select Committee of 
five, to report a proper resolution, on Monday next, 
in reference to the Hymnal. 

The motion was agreed to, and the President a]> 
pointed as the Committee Rev. Dr. Hall, of Long 
Island ; Rev. Dr. Schenck, of Long Island ; Rev. Dr. 
Geer, of New York ; Mr. Sheffey, of Virginia, and 
Mr. Pierrepont, of Long Island."^ 

EFFECT OF JOINT RESOLUTIONS. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will announce the 
Joint Committee to ascertain and report on the 
legal effect of the joint resolutions, in accordance 
with a message from the House of Bishops, which 
was received and concurred in yesterday : Rev. 
Dr. Mead, of Connecticut ; Rev. Dr. Hall, of Long 
Island ; Rev. Dr. Minnigerode, of Virginia ; Mr. 
Sheffey, of Virginia ; Mr. Comstock, of Central 
New York, and Mr. Mills, of New Jersey. 

THE CALENDAR. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Upon our C-al- 
endar there are a great many matters which, if 
reached, can be passed without any objection, and 
that it is very important should be passed on. I move, 
therefore, that the House take up the Calendar on 
Monday at ten^o'clock, and go regularly through it 
so as to dispose'of the business upon it. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. That 
does not interfere v/ith the special order at two 
o'clock ? 

The PRESIDENT. I think not. 

Mr. BURGWIN. We expect to get through in 
half an hour. 

The motion was agreed to. 

RELIGIOUS REFORM ABROAD. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I offer the 
following resolution which will involve no discus- 
sion. 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concmTlng), 



358 



That another member of that House be added to 
the J oint Committee on Ecclesiastical Relations and 
Religious Reform." 

I offer this at the request of some members of the 
House of Bishops that they may appoint an addi- 
tional member. They only ask to add another 
member of their House who has a very thorough 
knowledge of the subject. It is necessary to do this 
by concurrent action, as the Committee has already 
been appointed under the action of both Houses. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

ALTERATION OF THE PRAYER-BOOK. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The business 
which now comes up under order is the reports of 
the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, and 
the one first in order is as to the alteration of the 
Prayer-Book, I beg leave to read a sentence from 
that report in order that every one may get the 
idea of the report. 

" But by the present wise provision of the Consti- 
tution no alteration can be made in the Prayer- 
Book, imless the desired changes in all essential de- 
tails have been proposed in one Greneral Convention, 
made Imown to each Diocesan Convention, and 
adopted at the next Greneral Convention, thus se- 
curing three full years for their examination and 
approval. And thus is obtained that deliberate 
sanction which the Constitution intended to secure 
in such an important matter." 

That is the gist of the report. The resolution at 
the end of it is: 

"Resolved, That the Committee be discharged 
from further consideration of this subject." 

The resolution was agreed to. 

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. There is a re- 
port which was made on the eighteenth day on 
Article 3, declining to make any change in the article. 
The mind of the Committee on this point, although 
not expressed in the report, is simply that it is un- 
wise to make any changes in the third article of the 
(Constitution. My own explanation of their mind 
is that until the House of Bishops shall sur- 
render the secret session, it is inexpe- 
dient to extend the three days or make other 
changes in that article. That is not in the report, 
but that is what I think of it. If they will give us 
the power of knowing what is being done, we can 
extend the time ; otherwise, when we give anything 
into their hands, we know nothing about it until it 
comes back at a later time. The resolution is simply 
that the Committee be discharged. 

The Secretary read the report as follows : 

"The Committee on Constitutional Amendments, 
to whom were referred sundry amendments to 
Article 3 of the Constitution, proposed by Dr. 
Leeds, of Maryland, Mr. Montgomery, of Geor- 
gia, Mr. Blanchard, of Maryland, aZ. , have had 
the same under consideration, and beg leave to re- 
port : That in the opinion of the Committee it is de- 
sirable to retain the provisions of said articles, re- 
quiring the House of Bishops to signify to this 
House their approbation or disapprobation (the 
latter with their reasons in writing) within a 
specified time, to the end that this House may know 
what has been done ; and in case of non-concur- 
rence, the reasons therefor, which will enable the 
House to meet the issue thus raised. 

" Also to retain that provision which makes any 
Bishop present ex officio a member of the House un- 
til there are three or more Bishops in attendance— 
for surely, in such a case, such Bishop or Bishops 
would make most valuable members of this House. 
And it is not advisable to dispense with such assis- 
tance. 

" The Committee submit the following resolution : 



" * Resolved, That it is inexpedient, at this time, 
to adopt any of the said amendment proposed to 
Article 3 of the Constitution. ' " 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I move 
the passage of the resolution. 

The resolution was adopted. 

SUPPLEMENTARY DEPUTIES. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I should be 
very much gratified if I might be allowed now to 
present the other reports, in nn order that I think 
will avoid debate upon two or three of them and 
let them go, otherwise I must go on in regular 
order. 

Several DEPUTIES. Go on in your own way. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would bring 
up next a report made on the 19th day on Supplemen- 
tary Deputies, a question put to the Committee, and 
answered on the 159th page of The Daily Church- 
man. The conclusion of the report is that the Com- 
mittee ask to be discharged from the further con- 
sideration of the subject, as the matter really be- 
longs to the Dioceses. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I move that 
the request of the Committee to be discharged be 
granted. 

The motion was agreed to. 

clerical TRIALS. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island, Then a ques- 
tion was put to the Committee whether it might not 
be well to insert an article requiring in all cases of 
trials of clergymen a verdict of two-thirds of the 
court. The conclusion is that it is not within our 
power to order in that manner. The resolution is 
that the .Committee be discharged from the further 
consideration of the subject. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I ask tho 
Chairman what was the main reason for not consid- 
ering it ? Was it that it was within the power of the 
Dioceses? 

Rev. Dr. Hall, of Long Island. Yes, sir : it be- 
longs to the Dioceses. 
The resolution was adopted. 

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. A report was 
made on an ecclesiastical commission not to exam- 
ine the Prayer-Book, but the Constitution, and the 
report was against it. It is in these words : 

" Resolved, That it is inexpedient at this tim6 to 
institute any commission to revise and amend the 
Constitution of the Church. " 

The resolution was agreed to. 

court of appeals. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of liong Island. There is a 
report of the same character in regard to a Court of 
Appeals, against it. The report is as follows : 

" The Committee on Amendments to the Consti- 
tution, to which was referred the message of the 
House of Bishops No. 33, and several resolutions 
upon the subject of an Amendment to the Constitu- 
tion to empower the General Convention to create a 
Court of Appeals, respectfully report that they have 
considered the subject, and while there was some 
difference of opinion, a decided majority deemed it 
inexpedient to make such amendment. Your Com- 
mittee therefore recommend the adoption of the 
following resolutions: 

" Resolved^ That it is not expedient to amend the 
Constitution so as to authorize the General Conven- 
tion to establish a Court of Appeals. 

" Resolved, That this House does not concur in the 
resolution of the House of Bishops in Message 
No. 33. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I should like 
that put on the Calendar. 



359 



Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. That opens it 
t o discvission. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I do not care to 
discuss it, but I do not propose to commit the Con- 
vention against a Court of Appeals. 

SeverarDEPUTIES. Move to lay it on the table, 
then. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I move to lay 
it on the table. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Does the 
gentleman mean to call it up again ? 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. No, sir ; I merely 
wish to let it die with this Convention. It is too 
late to discuss it. 

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 

SHORTENED FORMS OF PRAYER. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Now, I leave 
the Convention to judge for themselves which 
shall come up next. Our report is on shortened 
forms of prayer, and offering a change in the Con- 
stitution in order to provide for it, and the other on 
the provincial system. The first on shortened forms 
of prayer I will read : 

"The Committee on Amendments to the Consti- 
tution, to whom was referred a resolution asking a 
report upon the expediency of proposing an amend- 
ment to Article VIII. of the Constitution, have had 
the same under consideration, and respectfully re- 
port the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the following be proposed and made known to 
the several Dioceses as an Amendment to Article 
VIII. of the Constitution, to be added at the end of 
the Article as it now stands, to wit, the words, 
'Provided that the General Convention may, by 
Canon, arrange and set forth a shortened form of 
Morning and Evening Prayer, to be compiled 
wholly from the Book of Common Prayer; or may 
authorize the same to be done by any Diocese for its 
own use.' " 

At the last Convention the House of Deputies did 
pass a resolution to that effect, but the House of 
Bishops con-concurred in and defeated it. As I xm- 
dei^tand it, the House of Bishops have sent down 
something in the form of a change of Lectionary, 
so that it seems it was proper for us to lay the mat- 
ter before the Convention that they might decide 
whether it is expedient to reach shortened forms of 
prayer in this method, or in any other method. 
That question and the question of the provincial sys- 
tem, whichever the Convention choose to consider 
fii-st, I will now call up. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. So the Committee 
report that we may provide for shortened services 
without altering the Prayer-Book ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. No, sir ; a for- 
mer report was made that we could not. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. Is 
the Lectionary included in it ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The Lection- 
ary will be included in the form of prayer made by 
Canon if this change be made. Will the Conven- 
tion take up that subject ? If so, I will offer the re- 
ytort. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I under- 
stand that tins report proposes that the Constitu- 
tion shaU be so amended as that shortened forms 
of morning and evening prayer can be 
set forth either by the General Convention 
or by any of the Dioceses. I do not wish 
to say anything about it, but simply to 
remind the Convention that at present we have a 
Prayer-Book, which leaves it to be inferred that we 
ought to say morning and evening prayer every 
day, and the daily services of the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church has become an impossibility except in cer- 
tain places. In England they had the same diflBculty 



and not long ago they amended the act of uniformity 
so as to permit shortened services to be put forth 
and those shortened services are in use at this pre- 
sent time in the Church of England. The Morning 
Prayer in the Church of England consists of the 
saying of one sentence of the Sentences, the Confes- 
fession, the Absolution, the Lord's Prayer, the Ver- 
sicles that follow, one Psalm or more from the 
Psalter, one Lesson, one Canticle, the Creed, the 
Versicles, three Collects, and the Prayer of St. 
Chrysostom, That is the shortened sei'vice, which 
can be said, if it is said without being sung, in twelve 
minutes, and can be sung, say, in fifteen minute?. 
We cannot do this, it seems, ^because it is contrary 
to our Constitution; and in order to get at it in the 
shortest way possible it is proposed that the Con- 
stitution of the Church shall be so amended as to 
permit this very necessary and desirable thing. I 
trust this House will unanimously adopt the propos- 
ed amendment to the Constitution which this Com- 
mittee has brought in, 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I should lite to ask 
whether it is for Sundays as well as week-days ? 
(" Yes," " Yes;" "No," "No.") 

Rev.' Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I answer 
that I understand it is not for Sundays ;on the con- 
trary, Sundays, Christmas Day, Ash Wednesday, 
Ascension Day, and Good Friday, are all excepted. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. That was my own 
impression. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
wish also to ask — and perhaps the Reverend Deputy 
from Wisconsin can ansv/er — whether in the case of 
the Church of England it is not so ordered that 
there is one uniform order of shortened prayer 
throughout the kingdom ? 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Certainly. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. 
Whereas the proposal before us would leave it a 
standing discord and confusion, in that it leaves it to 
each separate Diocese to elect as it chooses, and in- 
stead of uniform shortened services it gives liberty 
to each Diocese, as I understand. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. That dif- 
ficulty may be met by striking out that clause, so 
as to leave it to the General Convention instead of 
the Diocese. 

Rev. Dr. DUDLEY, of Maryland. I can answer 
that there is no proposal that at this time we shall 
do this on Sunday or any other day. It is to leave 
it t© be done by Canon. The amendment is merely 
that the Constitution shall give the power to the 
Convention. That settles all these questions. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. That is the 
elemental prmciple, that this matter shall be canon- 
ical. You passed a Canon in the last Convention in 
this House, and the Bishops refused to concur in it 
because it was unconstitutional. We now declare 
it to be constitutional by proposing to amend the 
constitution so that this change, and no other, can 
be made canon ically. 

^■Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina, obtained the 
floor. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I hope the re- 
port wiU be read before the gentleman goes on. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long island. The report has 
been read, but I will read Article 8 of the Constitu- 
tion as it wiU stand if amended as we propose : 

"A Book of Common Prayer, Administration of 
the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of 
the Church, Articles of Religion, and a Form and 
Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating 
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, when established by 
this or a future General Convention, shall be used 
in the Protestant Episcopal Church in those Dioceses 
which shall have adopted this Constitution. No 
alteration or addition shall be made in the Book of 
Common Prayer or other Offices of the Church, or 



360 



the Articles of Religion, unless the same shall be 
proposed in one Genei'oJ Convention, and by a 
i-esolve thereof made kr.o^-vn to the Convention of 
every Diocese, and adopted at the subsequent Gene- 
ral Convention : Provided, that the General Con- 
vention may, by Canon, arrange and set forth a 
shortened form of Moi ning and Evening Prayer, to 
be compiled v/holly from the Book of Common 
Prayer ; or may authorize the same to be done by 
any Diocese for its own use." 

It is simply giving to the Convention that much 
power. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. I must beg 
leave to say that while I desire that there should be 
a mode of shortening the services as much as any 
one here, I object to this mode, and think it can be 
done in a better mode. I submit my view to you 
and you can judge. 

It is to be remarked that here you are getting a 
change in the Prayer-Book by changing the Con- 
stitution, I am opposed to that entirely. It is 
easier for you to change the Constitution and get 
command of the Prayer-Book very often, than it 
would be to change the Prayer-Book itself in the 
allowed mode. 

The way to change the Prayer-Book is marked out 
for you in the Constitution. You do not go to that, 
you'^do not try to change the Prayer-Book, but you 
seek to change the Constitution so as to give this 
body power to change the Prayer-Book. That is a 
very serious thing. Once let the Convention dis- 
cover that they can, without changing the Prayer- 
Book in the manner the Constitution provides, 
change the Constitution so as to get at the Prayer- 
Book, and you leave everything in doubt. This 
same thing can be accompUshed by a Rubric. It is 
the Prayer-Book you want to alter. It 
takes no more trouble to put in a Rubric than it 
does to amend the Constitution ; but the other is 
straightforwai'd, and goes directly to the object, 
and then, when it is put there, it is not left open 
afterwards to be changed by Canon. You do not 
give this body or any other body power to do just 
what they please, for remember now that when 
this question came up, and when the question about 
the Lectionary was brought up, the gentleman from 
Western New "^ork said that that would 
be covered by this proposition. Then is this 
Convention to have power at any time to change 
the whole of the Lectionary ? Are you ready to do 
that ? 1 am not willing to do that. I am not will- 
ing to allow this Convention to direct a change in 
our Lectionary every three years, and to make al- 
terations v/henever they please. What I want to 
do Ls to fix the thing so that it may be done, but to 
put the hmit saying where they must stop. 

I have drawn this Rubric relative to the order of 
Morning Prayer. Listen to it; and if I can get no 
more than this, I ask you to allow this to go down 
to the different Dioceses along with the other, and 
let us think three years on it and see which is the 
best way to do it. 

'•Order how the Morning and Evening Prayer, 
Litany, and Occasional Prayers shall or may be 
said, and how the Psalms and Lessons for the day 
may be changed." 

What is the title of the Rubric ? 

'• On Sundays and on all fasts and festivals ap- 
pointed by the Church, no change shall be allowed 
in any organized church, parish, or congregation, 
within any organized Diocese. On all other days, 
and all other occasions on those days other than the 
regular morning and evening service, each Dio- 
case"— 

I confine it to the Dioceses, they knowing best 
their own wants — 

— "may, by the action of its Convention, approved 
by the Bishop, allow to its Presbyters and organized 



churches and pa,rishes and congregatious such lib- 
erty by the omission of some and substitution of 
lessons and psalms as each Diocese shall see fit. But 
nothing shall be added thereto except that the Bish- 
op may set forth special prayers to l3e used on spe- 
cial occasions, and may also set forth special service 
for extraordinary occasions. 

"Liberty in all these respects may be given to 
Missionary Bishops by the House of Bishops for all 
occasions, under sucli limitations and restrictions as 
the House of Bishops may, by their solemn order, 
declare." 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. May I 
ask the gentleman how long it would take to ac- 
complish this purpose ? 

Mr. McCRADY, of South CaroUna. The very 
same time it will take to accomplish the other, and 
I am very willing that both propositions should go 
down, and let three years' dehberation pass upon 
them. If this be approved, after examination, I am 
sm-e it is better than the other. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I ask the 
gentleman if he meant to deny this power of short- 
ening on Fridays ? He speaks of fast days. AU the 
Fridays of the year are fast days. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. No ; I did 
not mean to do that. 

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. They ought 
to be excepted. 

Rev. Dr. CORBETT, of lUinois. I ask if this is 
not new business brought in after the sixteenth 
day? 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. This was 
before the Committee when they considered the 
matter, and is the way I proposed to get at the sub- 
ject. 

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. Let me ask 
whether the gentleman includes Deacons as well as 
Presbyters ? 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. No; I con- 
fine it to Presbyters. 

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Arkansas. It will not 
do, 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsbm-gh, May I ask the 
gentleman whether this proposition has ever been 
introduced into the House ? 
Mr, McCRADY, of South CaroUna, No, 
Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Then it is too 
late. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South CaroUna. I offer this 
as an amendment to that. 

Mr, BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. But it is to go 
down with that. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. I am willing 
it shall go down with that if you choose. I offer it 
as an amendment, and that brings it fairly before 
the House. 

Mr, BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I do not insist on 
the point of order, but you cannot bring up a diffe- 
rent proposition entirely from the report of the 
Committee. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South CaroUna. It is not a 
new proposition ; it is in relation to shortening the 
services, and I put on limitations. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. One is a change ^ 
of the Constitution, and the other a change of the * 
Prayer-Book. That is the difference. 

The PRESIDENT. I think one is a fair amend- 
ment to the other, 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. I submit it 
to the House. I do say that when there is set forth 
and marked out a way to alter the Prayer-Book, 
for you to go around it and not alter the Prayer- 
Book at all, but alter the Constitution, and put it 
in the power of another body to alter the Prayer- 
Book, is not, according to my idea, the proper 
course to pursue. Why are different modes pre- 
scribed ? You try to get around the provision of 



361 



the Constitution by altering the Constitution so as 
to thereby get an alteration of the Prayer-Book. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I wish to ask 
the Deputy from South Carolina a question : How 
does this proposed alteration change the Prayer- 
Book, when we have a limitation which requires all 
the shortened prayers to be taken out of the Prayer- 
Book ? There is no change in the Prayer-Book by 
this report, because where a Presbyter or Bishop is 
allowed to use a shorter form of prayer, he is limit- 
ed by the very amendment which says it shall be 
taken from the Prayer-Book. I therefore do not see 
the force of the argument of the learned Deputy, 
that this proposed amendment changes the Prayei'- 
Book at all. 

Rev. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Ai'kansas. Is it not in- 
tended to be a compilation from the Praver-Book ? 

The PRESIDENT. The Deputy from South 
Carolina must not be f mother interrupted. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. What I 
have to say is that if you can give the power 
to anybody to alter the Prayer-Book in 
any other" way, it is an evasion of the 
Constitution. What does yom' Canon say as 
to the use of the Prayer-Book when you pass it < 
They will teU yon that this is the manner of using 
the Prayer-Book. The difficulty is that the way to 
use the Pmyer-Book is presented here. The fact 
that you allow these shorter seiwices to be taken 
out of the Prayer-Book does not affect that at all. 
You have not even put in here that they 
shall not add to it. It is ti*ue, you have 
said they may be taken out of the Prayer-Book. 
That is your Constitutional amendment, but still 
that- does not answer the other objection, that you 
get at the Prayer-Book by giving a power to this 
body when you have not tried to alter the Prayer- 
Book itself. I hope that the next Convention wiU 
be defeated in that effort anyhow. But I am very 
willing to give the shortened sei-vices, but I want to 
give them in the right way. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I have a very few 
words to say, and I speak in the name of the Com- 
mittee on Constitutional Amendments, being one of 
them. The learned gentleman who has just re- 
sumed his seat is a member of that Committee, and 
he alone refused to sign this report. I join issue 
with him as to his position, that you may obtain 
the desii-ed end, nameh', a shortened service for 
Morning and Evening Prayer, without the Consti- 
tution being amended at all, and for this reason : 
In order to obtain the end as the Constitu- 
tion now stands, you must prepare that 
service, verbatim et literatim, and send it 
to the several Dioceses, and only after it has been 
before the Dioceses three years can the General 
Convention act upon it and make it a law. For this 
reason the Committee on Constitutional Amend- 
ments proposed this amendment to the Constitution. 
They saw that there was no time at this session of 
the General Convention, with the mass of business 
before it, to prepare that shortened service, 
and to send it down to the Dioceses, so that 
at the next General Convention this thing could be 
consummated, and there were no two opinions in the 
Committee, and I believe there are no two opinions 
in the House that it is desirable to attain this end. 
There was but one mode, therefore, of accomplishing 
that object at the next General Convention, and that 
was to propose this amendment to the Constitution. 
That we had time to do, that we have done. 

Now, if that proposition meets the approbation 
of the two Houses, it can go to the Dioceses, and 
then next Convention some of your learned clerical 
gentlemen will come here ah-eady prepared to make 
the proposition and let it be acted upon and passed 
at once. If you do not pass this constitutional 
amendment, you cannot attain a shortened service 



until six years from now, instead of thi'ee. There- 
fore my learned friend is mistaken in supposing 
that end can be attained in the same length of time. 
If we had the shortened service, and could pass 
upon it at this session, I should agree with him, but 
we have not got it, nor have we time to prepare it. 

Now, where is the danger, I ask, in allowing this 
House the constitutional privilege of ^'making a 
shoitened service — for that is all the amendment 
proposes ? It is no general amendment or alteration 
of the Prayer-Book or Rubrics ; but this 
House simply desires to make a shortened 
service, which the Church throughout the 
entire length and breadth of the country 
requires. Is my learned friend afraid to trust 
this House to make that shortened service ? There 
must be power somewhere ; there must be confidence 
! somewhere. If he cannot trust that to this House, 
: I woidd like to know to whom he would trust it ; 
i because it is this House that must pass upon it, and 
I when it has acte* upon it, it has to be passed upon 
! by the House of Bishops before it can become a law. 
! I therefore think, with great respect to the 
j som'ce from which the objection to the proposed 
I constitutional amendment emanates, that there is 
I veiy little in it, and that this House ought to pass 
I upon it. 

j Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I move 
! that the amendment presented by the Deputy from 
I South Carolina be laid on the table, 
i The PRESIDENTpro tempore (Rev. Dr. Geer, of 
I New York, in the chair). I do not think it has had 
a second. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Then the 
motion is not necessary. 
! Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. I move that the 
i last clause in the resolution of the Committee, giv- 
j ing the privilege to Dioceses to make this change, be 
I stricken out. 

! Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would ask the 
' gentleman to consider exactly what that is. The 
i words are, ' ' or may authorize the same to be done 
I by any Diocese for its own use. This Convention 
I wiU authorize it, not the Diocese. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jei^sey. I sec- 
ond the motion to omit the last change in the pro- 
posed amendment. I cannot conceive of any cir- 
i cumstances under which it would be desirable for 
1 this House to give permission to a Diocese to have a 
' special shortened service. I am in favor of one 

■ shortened form for the whole Chm'ch being 
i passed upon by this body, if we are going 
! to have anything. It is proposed that 
, this Convention shaU have the power to author- 
i ize, by Canon, any Diocese to put forth a shortened 
i service for its own use. I do not think they ever 
I would do it, and therefore I see no necessity for 
: having this last clause retained in the proposed 

■ amendment. I have no doubt the Bishops will 
sti-ike it out if we do keep it in. 

: Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I hope this 
[ amendment will not prevail. We all agree there 

■ ought to be shortened services. What the learned 
: Deputy from Wisconsin says I heartily endorse. I 

live in a State which is one of the oldest of the new 
States, I beheve the second admitted into the Union, 
; and there are nine or ten counties where an Episco- 
pal Bishop, Priest, or Deacon has never put his foot. 
: Look at this Church. Do gentlemen want to bind 
! her hand and foot ? Look at the Dioceses boimding 
! upon the Indian frontier, and where is this Chm-ch, 
i the insti-umentality of so much good ? Are those 
Missionary Bishops and Diocesan Bishops to have no 
t discretion ? 

The Clerical Deputy from New Jersey says that 
he does not want to leave it to the power of the Dio- 
cese. Sii% I am amazed at such an enunciation. Is 
he afraid to trust a Bishop or a Diocese, or is the 



362 



Prayer-Book to become such an idol that it shall be 
said that the Prayer-Book was not made for man, 
but man for the Prayer-Book ? Which is it ? 
I trust we shall cling to this Prayer-Book. 
This Constitutional amendment does not pro- 
pose to touch it, and the provision is that every 
form of sei-vice shall be taken from the Prayer- 
Book; but let us accommodate this Church to the 
demands of the times. If the use of these shortened 
services in the estimation of the Diocesan Bishop 
will be productive of good, let us allow it. That is 
my idea, and there is no danger in it. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. Let me add one 
word to what the Deputy from Kentucky has said. 
He has mentioned the Indians. I live in a country 
where another class of population exists, the proper 
service for which we may find to be best adjudged 
by the Diocese itself, and I urge that their claims 
on this Convention be not forgotten. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I am very glad 
indeed to hear one change in this direction pro- 
posed, for ever since I have been here I have heard 
nothing but the wMstle, "Down brakes." From 
the very beginning of this Convention we 
have been putting on the brakes, and I 
was very glad to hear my friend from 
Kentucky whistle another quaver. It is 
really encouraging to me to hope that I have 
been in this Convention long enough to find one 
practical thing brought up. It is a mere question 
whether we shall sanction it or not. I do think 
these Dioceses, with the Prayer-Book in their hands, 
can be trusted with their Bishops. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. This*report pre- 
sents a very important question for our considera- | 
tion, which is new to me to a certain extent. So i 
far as the leading idea is concerned, as to giving the j 
Convention power by Canon to provide for short- | 
ened services, I have as yet not made up i 
my own mind. My inclination is to go in favor j 
of it ; but giving the Dioceses that right is 
entirely a different question, and unless their 
amendment prevails, striking out that clause, I shall 
certainly go against the whole of it, and I believe 
that the feeling of the House will be in the same 
direction. Therefore, I call upon the friends of the 
leading idea to vote to strike this out, if they wish 
to save the whole measure. Otherwise, the whole 
will be lost. I only judge of others by my own feel- 
ing, not committed at all to the matter, but as it 
strikes me on first presentation. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. One word more, 
if you please. Let the Convention remember that 
this does not fix to whom this power is to be given, 
but only that the power is to be placed in the hands 
of this Convention to decide at the next meeting 
how it is to be done. Perhaps I did not express my- 
self sufficiently explicitly just now when 1 referred 
to the colored population of the Southern States. I 
entreat you at least to reserve the power to leave it 
to the Dioceses. In that coimtry a great deel has 
to be done by this Clmrch. We do not yet 
see our way ; we are trying to feel and find our 
way; and if you withhold that power from us, you 
may shut the door upon the things that we so much 
seek for. To us who live among that population, 
and who ^now them, it is apparent that there should 
be somethmg left in the way of discretion to the 
Diocese. Therefore, I ask you only to leave the 
power, • to be judged of at the next Convention. 
Reasons may be given for it, and reasons may be 
given against it ; but I tell you it is a serious con- 
sideration to us, and on that ground I ask you to 
retain it. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I only want 
to say, Mr. President and gentlemen, that perhaps 
it will make the matter a little more clear if it is re- 
membered that in the English Church they were in 



the same situation that we are. They had a Prayer- 
Book, and they had these long services. 
They, too, felt the need of shortened services, 
and what did they do ? Did they go to 
work and try to alter the Prayer-Book by 
Rubric, as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
McCrady] proposes? No ; they simply amended 
their Act of Uniformity, and having amended the 
Act of Uniformity, then the shortened services 
were legal. So what we propose to do is not to 
amend the Prayer-Book, but to amend that which 
corresponds to the English Act of Uniformity, 
namely, oui- Constitution. 

And now let me say one word with respect to the 
other thing. It is not proposed, at this time, to give 
this power to the Dioceses ; it is only proposed to 
put it in the power of this Convention to give that 
authority to the Dioceses at some future time, 
if it thinks proper. The whole question of 
whether it is best or not to give it to the Dioceses 
may be debated at some future time. So I say, let 
us pass this Constitutional Amendment just as it 
has come to us, and then we shall have the power 
of making shortened services, and then the ques- 
tion will remain open yet whether we shall give 
it to the Dioceses or not. Therefore let us pass this, 
and leave the question which the Deputy from 
Pittsburgh speaks of to be settled when it comes 
before us at the proper time. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
do not propose to occupy more than a moment. If 
I understand the last clause of this report, it autho- 
rizes, when adopted as part of the Constitution, the 
General Convention to confer not upon all Dioceses 
generally but upon any particular Diocese it pleases, 
the authority to use such shortened services as ic 
may advise. But, Mr. President, we must remem- 
ber that the danger of this thing is very trifling 
when it is qualified by the rule that they shall use 
nothing but what is in the Book of Common Prayer. 
They shall add nothing to it whatever. They 
are to be bound entirely by the Book of Common 
Prayer ; and where is the danger of giving the' 
power to this General Convention to authorize a 
Djocese on the frontier, which needs peculiar ser- 
vices adapted to its peculiar population, or a Dio- 
cese which is composed of a major portion of ignor- 
ant colored people, to select from the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer by its Convention such services as it 
thinks peculiarly adapted to their locality and peo- 
ple, if they desire ? 

Mr. President, there is no trenching upon the Pray 
er-Book here. Many men of sound mind believe 
even that it could be done without any amendment 
of the Constitution. They doubt whether it be an 
alteration of the Prayer-Book to take the services 
and arrange them in a different form or leave out 
some. Reading it here, I at first thought it did not 
requii-e any amendment of the Prayer-Book, but I 
am persuaded that the words "no alteration shaU 
be made " except in this way would require that we 
should not alter the form of Morning Service even 
by omitting a single paragraph without this process 
of amendment. But I say that the danger appre- 
hended is imaginary. It is feared, first, that this Con- 
vention, representing, as it does, the entire Church, 
will give that power when it ought not to. The 
second distrust is that if this Convention do give a 
particular Diocese, having special needs, that special 
power, jt will not exercise it discreetly. Now, it 
seems to me this is Over-carefulness. We" may safely 
trust to this great priuciple, that the Prayer-Book 
itself being unaltered and every prayer remaining the 
same, we may safely give to a Diocese the privilege 
of selecting such prayers as on special occasions 
shall be suited to special people and special au- 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. The ques- 



363 



tion on laying my proposition on the table has not 
yet been voted on. Let that be done. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I do not think 
your proposition had a second. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. It was se- 
conded. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I under- 
stood that proposition was not seconded. Since 
then I am informed it was, and I therefore renew 
my motion to lay the amendment of the Lay Deputy 
from South Carolina on the table. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is 
on the motion to lay the amendment on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question 
now is on the amendment offered by Rev. Dr. Far- 
rington, of New Jersey, to strike out these words : 

Or may authorize the same to be done by any 
Diocese for its own use." 

Rev. Mr. MARPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
earnestly hope those words may not be stricken out. 
That is the very thing in the resolution which com- 
mends itself to me. I will take it without that if I 
cannot get it with it, but I desire that particularly, 
because it seems to be going back to primitive 
usage. You would not find in ancient times 
forty or fifty Dioceses all with precisely the 
same use. Bishops had then some power. 
The Primitive Church was willing to trust its chief 
ofllcers, and never suffered harm in so doing ; and if 
the needs of different Dioceses vary, why should we 
not be willing to meet those wants ? The wants of 
South Carolina are entirely different from the wants 
of the Diocese of New York. Why not recognize 
such a fact in our legislation ? I earnestly tmst, 
therefore, that we will keep this clause in, simply 
because we are following the safeguard of primitive 
custom, and are recognizing the universal use of the 
early Church. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. I move to 
lay the amendment on the table. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. If that pre- 
vails the resolution remains as it was originally 
proposed. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is 
on the motion of the gentleman from Missouri to 
lay the amendment on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT, pro tempore. The question 
now arises on agreeing with the Committee in their 
resolution, and I am instructed that the vote must 
be taken by orders. 

Rev, Dr. CADY, of New York, I move that 
the vote of each Diocese be given by some Deputy 
selected as the name of the Diocese is called, which 
will avoid the calling of the names of individual 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That course 
wiU be pursued, if there be no objection. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. Let the Secretary 
read the proposition. 

The Secretary read the resolution of the Com- 
mittee. 

Rev, Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. Does that in- 
clude Sundays or not ? 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. It does not 
say anything about Sundays. 

Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. Does this 
proposition say airything about Sunday services ? 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. It leaves this 
Convention by Canon to do as it pleases. 

The Assistant Secretary (Rev. Dr. Williams, of 
Georgia) proceeded to call the list of Dioceses, and 
was interrupted by — 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. There is a mis- 
understanding about a single point, and I wish to 
have the report read so that gentlemen can under- 
stand it. It is said positively by some members 



that there is a restriction in this proposition with 
regard to Sunday services, and certain festivals of 
the Church. I did not understand that to be in the 
report, and I would like to have it read. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. There is no- 
thing of the sort in it. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. It is in the power of 
the Convention at any time. 

The Secretary read the resolution as follows : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the following be proposed and made known to 
the several Dioceses as an amendment to Article 
VIII. of the Constitvition, to be added at the end of 
the article as it now stands — to wit, the words, 
' Provided, That the General Convention may, by 
Canon, arrange and set forth a shortened form of 
Morning and Evening Prayer, to be compiled only 
from the Book of Common iPrayer, or may authorize 
the same to be done by any Diocese for its own 
use.'" 

Rev. Dr. HASKINS, of Long Island. I can never 
give my vote " aye " on that. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama (having voted in 
the affirmative). Alabama changes its vote, and 
votes " nay." 

The Secretary resumed and concluded the call of 
the Dioceses, with the following result : 

Clerical Vote,— yli/e— Albany, Arkansas, Cali- 
fornia, Central New York, Connecticut, Delaware, 
Easton, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
Kansas, Kentucky, Long Island, Louisiana, Maine, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 
New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Veraiont, 
Virginia, Western New York, Wisconsin — 37, Nay 
— Alabama, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Texas — 4, Di- 
vided — Central Pennsylvania — 1, 

Lay Vote.— Albany, California, Central 
New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Easton, Georgia, 
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Long Island, Louis- 
iana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Vermont, Virginia, Western New York, 
Wisconsin — 25. Nay — New Jersey, Pittsburgh, 
South Carolina — 3. Divided — New York — 1. 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

PROVINCIAL SYSTEM. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I now beg leave 
to offer the next report, and the last, I am happy 
to say, from the Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution. 

The report was read as follows : 

"The Committee on Amendments to the Constitu- 
tion, to whom were referred memorials and other 
papers presenting the cjuestion of the expediency of 
devising a "Provincial System for the Church," 
having had the same under consideration, respect- 
fully report : 

"1. Your Committee assume that the terms 
' provincial system ' are used in the resolution in 
their full ecclesiastical and primitive sense. In the 
early Church there were : 1, the Parish ; 2, the Dio- 
cese ; 3, the Province ; 4, the Patriarchate. The 
Parish had its Priest, the Diocese its Bishop, the 
Province its Archbishop, the Patriarchate its Pa- 
triarch. Among these, the dominant and most 
active power was the Province, with its Archbishop. 
Speaking generally, we may say that it possessed 
the powers of this body and of the House of 
Bishops, and many of the powers of our Dioce- 
san Councils. The Provinces were disconnected 
and independent, except as, by very slender ties, 
they were united in the Patriarchate. Such a sys- 
tem would dismember this Church, and out of this 
now compact, and now united body, create five, or 
seven, or ten separate Churches. The ties which 



S6l 



might at Gvst unite them would grow weaker and 
weaker. However similar they might be at the 
moment of dismemberment, at that moment the 
process of divergence would begin, and would go 
on until the separation would be as great as that 
now existing between York and Canterbury. Those 
Provinces now coimnunicate with each other only 
informally. At the preliminary and very impor- 
tant Lambeth Conference, the Bishops of York did 
not attend, because it was convened by the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury. If the words "Province" 
and "Provincial System" mean anything, they 
mean all this. 

"If these terms, as used in the resolution, do not 
have as broad a signification as that given them 
above, it is respectfullj^ submitted that they ought 
not to be used. Having a well-defined signification 
in the nomenclature of Church polity, their use in 
another sense must create confusion and misconcep- 
tion. 

"2. The unity and unexampled prosperity now 
enjoyed by the Church is mainly to be attributed, 
under Divine Providence, to its simple but efficient 
organization under one supreme authority in the 
General Convention, restrained only by the Eccle- 
siastical Constitution established by the piety and 
forecast of our fathers. 

" No fundamental change should be made in that 
organization without the clearest evidence of ur- 
gent necessity, and then only in the constitutional 
mode, by carefully prepared amendments to the 
Constitution, proposed and passed by the General 
Convention, to be submitted to the clergy and laity 
in each of the Dioceses for their due consideration, 
before its second passage in the next G eneral Con- 
vention. 

"4. In framing or enlarging the organization of 
the Apostolic Church in the United States of Amer- 
ica, as one great province of the Church Catholic, 
there was not, nor is there now, any Scriptural or 
other necessity for adopting or following any ex- 
ample of local organization in any other country or 
age. The Church, in any of the nations of Chris- 
tendom, is fully and plainly at liberty at all times to 
conform its local organization to its local condi- 
tions and necessities. 

"5. No evidence has yet been furnished by expe- 
rience of any action or want of action by the Gen- 
eral Convention of the Church in the United States, 
which requires any large surrender or delegation of 
its powers to provinces, or groups of Dioceses, rep- 
resenting only separate portions of the Church. 

"6. Any such surrender, practically estabhshing 
iadependent Churches, must eventually and inevi- 
tably operate to undermine and overthrow the para- 
mount authority of the General Convention, vitally 
necessary for preserving the unity of the Church. " 

"7. In view of the continental extent of the 
Church, already reaching from the Atlantic to the 
Pacific, and requiring personal supervision of its 
widespread subdivisions, the present House of Bi- 
shops is not too numerous, but may be gradually 
and wisely increased in number to keep pace with 
the growth of the Church. 

"8. If the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
should hereafter become too numerous for convenient 
and efficient action, the evil may be promptly reme- 
died without any fundamental change in the "charac- 
ter of our ecclesiastical structure, by constitutional 
amendments from time to time reducing the num- 
ber of Deputies from each of the Dioceses whenever 
rendered necessary by their increase in number. 

"9. No intermediate provinces are needed for 
exercising any powers already possessed by the 
Diocesan Conventions, while any other powers 
granted to provinces must necessarily be subtracted 
from the General Convention, which would be 
thereby enfeebled to the same extent. 



1 "10. Any institution of provinces, or Provincial 
Synods, with powers subject at all times to revoca- 
tion by the General Convention, would be useless 
and illusory. The .Provinces, if invested with irre- 
vocable powers, and discharged from the constant 
and necessary authority and supervision of the 
j General Convention, certainly might, and probably 
1 would, soon diverge into widely differing practices 
j and opinions, engendering ecclesiastical confficts, 
I threatenmg the unity of our Church. 
I "11. Apart from these fearful consequences in the 
I future, reaching far down the coming ages, the sepa- 
1 ration of our Church into geographical and sec- 
tional provinces would work immediate injury in 
discontinuing or rendering less frequent the General 
Conventions (now triennial) of the Bishops, and the 
representatives of the Clergy and Laity, in which 
fraternal assembhes the efforts of all to advance the 
highest interests of the Church, and especially its 
widespread missionary labors, are encouraged and 
invigorated, thereby more closely imiting our now 
undivided Church in a perpetual bond of Christian 
sympathy and affection. 

" Fully impressed with the convictions now ex- 
I pressed, the Committee recommend the passage of 
i the following resolution : 

j " Resolved, That, in the judgment of the House 
j of Clerical and Laj^ Deputies, it is not expedient to 
\ establish a provincial system for this Church. 
1 " CHAS. H. HALL, Chairman, 
I Clerical Deputy from Diocese of Long Island. 

I J. A. DUDLEY, Jr., 

I Clerical Deputy from Diocese of Maryland. 

I BENJAMIN A. ROGERS, 

I Clerical Deputy from Diocese of Texas. 

I SAMUEL B. RUGGLES, 

i Lay Deputy from New York. 

I J. W. STEVENSON, 

i Lay Deputy from Kentucky. 

i GEO. F. COMSTOCK, 

Lay Deputy from Central New York. 
W. F. BULLOCK, 
i Lay Deputy from Kentucky, 

i G. W. RICE, 
; Lay Deputy from Louisiana. 

I E. T. WILDER, 

Lay Deputy from Minnesota, 
j EDMUND H. BENNETT, 
1 Lay Deputy from Massachusetts, 

i ISAAC HAM.EHURST, 

Lay Deputy from Pennsylvania," 
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is 
on the resolution appended to the report. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I know the 
House is tired, and hardly prepared to listen to 
what I have to say, but I must say a few words. I 
object to the resolution because it states something 
! which is not borne out by the report. 
I Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Before Dr. 
De Koven begins his speech, I would hke to move an 
amendment to the resolution. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I have a 
motion to make about it, and that would spoil my 
motion. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Certainly, 
if you have a motion of your own to make, but I 
give notice of the amendment I intend to offer. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I was go- 
ing to say the Committee have found a windmill 
and have tilted against it and overthrown it. 
What they have overthrown is a windmiU. There 
I are two ideas of a provincial system which 
I have been in this Church. The first is the 
\ grouping together of certain Dioceses and States, 
i making, for instance, a province of the Atlantic, a 
i province of the Pacific, a province of the Gulf, and 
I a province of some other place, and giving them to 
' Archbishops, and so forming a great hierarchy. 



365 



That is the theory of a provincial system, the dan- 
ger of which are put down in this report, and 
therefore, because of these dangers, it is proposed 
"that, in the judgment of the House of Clerical 
and Lay Deputies, it is not expedient to establish a 
provincial system for this Church." 

I agree vpith those views. I have nothing what- 
ever to say in behalf of a provincial system such as 
is spoken against in this report. But if you pass 
this resolution, it is to condemn all ideas of a pro- 
vincial system, and I think this General 
Convention has had now, for no less than 
six yeai-s, a definite idea before it, on 
which it has acted, and in relation to which all its 
action on this subject has heretofore been deter- 
mined. The idea of a provincial system had been 
in the minds of certain Bishops ; amongst others, the 
late Bishop of Western New York, whom we all re- 
member with honor, and whose zeal, and discretion, 
and wisdom are still revered by all who knew him. 
That idea was constantly presented by 
him to the Rouse of Bishops; and in 
the time of the war the Confederate 
States, in forming their Constitution, got up 
the idea of a provincial system, and proposed that 
any two Dioceses could have the power of forming 
a federation for this purpose. In consequence, 
in the year 1865, after the war, when the General 
Convention met together, straightway there was a 
variety of proposals with regard to the provincial 
system, and when those proposals came up they 
were in two forms. One was this ; That this 
report goes against a variety of pro- 
vinces. The other was the "^idea of a 
federation of Dioceses within the limits of a single 
State. These two ideas came out prominently, and 
they were referred to a Committee of 17, of 'which 
Rev. Dr. Mahan, of Maryland, was Chairman ; and 
that Committee, in 1865, brought in a Canon which 
was in effect pretty much the same as the Canon 
on federate coimcils now found in om' Digest. But 
though that Canon was passed by the House of Dep- 
uties, it did not receive the approval of the House 
of Bishops, and so it did not become a law. 

But the subject did not drop. It was proposed 
again, and the second time it was with this other 
idea of a collection of States forming a province, 
and that was referred to a Committee in 1868. 
There was a very learned report on the subject of 
provinces, favoring the idea which is spoken against 
in this report, which was presented in this 
House by Rev. Dr. Mahan. That report 
came before the House, and we simply 
proposed that the alteration of the Constitution and 
Canons necessary to biing it into effect should be re- 
ferred to another Committee, and in 1868, such a 
Conunittee was aj^pointed, of which the Rev. Dr. 
Mulcahey was Chairman. Their report is to be 
found in the Appendix to the Journal of 1868, and 
they proposed two Canons, one entitled "Authoriz- 
ing the Formation of a Federate Convention or 
Council of the Dioceses vnthin any State," and the 
second, "Of Provincial Synods.'' I want to read 
those two Canons to this House. The first Canon 
was : 

"It is hereby declared lawful for the Dioceses 
now existing or hereafter to exist within the limits 
of any State or Commonwealth to establish for 
themselves a Federate Convention or Council rep- 
resenting such Dioceses, which may deliberate and 
decide upon the common interests of the Chm'ch 
within the limits aforesaid, and enact any laws not 
inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of 
the General Convention and the Book of Common 
Prayer. 

" The Bishop of the original See, with the consent 
of a majority of the Bishops of the said Dioceses, 



shall call the Primary Federate Convention, and 
shall be the Presiding Bishop thereof." 
The second Canon was : 

" Of Provincial Synods. 

"1. Whenever the several Dioceses in any State 
or Commonwealth shall have established for them- 
selves a Federate Convention, the said State or 
Commonwealth shall constitute an Ecclesiastical 
Province ; and the said Convenbion shall be known 
as the Provincial Svnod of the Church therein. 

" 2. The Provincial Synod shall consist of two co- 
ordinate Houses ; the' Upper including all the 
Bishops v^dthin the limits aforesaid ; and the Lower 
being composed of clergy and laity from each Dio- 
cese vsdthin the same. 

" 3. Each Diocese shall be entitled to send one 
Clerical and one Lay Deputy to tlie Synod : and. 
besides these, one additional Clerical Deputy for 
every ten clergymen having parochial charge in the 
Diocese, and an equal number of Lay Deputies. 

"4. The exclusive power of making and altering 
Constitutions and Canons, subject to those of the 
General CoiiTention, shall be vested in the Provin- 
cial Synod, except that the Convention or Convoca- 
tion of each Diocese may enact such Rules and Reg- 
ulations as pertain merely to the local interests of 
the same. 

" 5. The Bishops of the Province, when they are 
not less than three in number, acting under such 
Rules, and with such Assessors as the Synod may 
enact, shaU be a Coiu-t of final resort, to hear and 
decide appeals in aU matters ecclesiastical, brought 
before them from any Diocese within the Province." 

Those Canons were presented to this House. They 
simplv embodied the idea of a confederation of Dio- 
ceses within a State, and were made especially with 
a view to the Dioceses of New York and Pennsylva- 
nia, then, I believe, the only States that had more 
than one Diocese, and they were presented to this 
Convention. The Convention had a very long de- 
bate over it, considered the matter very carefully, 
and finally the present Canon on Federate Councils, 
Canon 8 of Title III., if not altered— it is in the Di- 
gest of 1868— was adopted, as follows: 

''Authorizing the Formation of a Federate Con- 
vention or Council, of the Dioceses within any 
State. 

"It is hereby declared lawful for the Dioceses 
now existing, or hereafter to exist, within the limits 
of any State or Commonwealth, to establish for 
themselves a Federate Convention or Council, re- 
presenting such Dioceses, which may deliberate and 
decide upon the common interests of the Church 
within the limits aforesaid, but before any determi- 
nate action of such Convention or Council shall be 
had, the powei-s proposed to be exercised thereby 
shall be submitted to the General Convention for 
its approval. 

"Nothing in this Canon shall be construed as for- 
bidding any Federate Council from taking such ac- 
tion as they may deem necessary to secure such 
legislative enactments as the common interests of 
the Church in the State may require." 

In other words, the Canon that was passed em- 
bodied the idea of the provincial system within the 
limits of a single State, known as the federation of 
Dioceses within that State. That was passed by 
the Convention in 1868. Nobody can have been 
present at this Convention, and the previous one of 
1871 , without realizing that the two conditions may 
be said to have had a somewhat reactionary ten- 
dency. 

In 1871 the federate council of the Diocese of New 
York, acting under this Canon, sent up to this Con- 
vention a series of powers, asking that those powers 
be granted. They are to be found on the fifty- 



366 



fourth page of the J ournal of the Convention. I 
need not read the declaration of powers all through. 
The only thing of any importance was — 

"3. To the establishment of an appellate court, to 
which, under the Canons of any particular Diocese, 
appeal may be made from the decision of any Dio- 
cesan court in said State." 

In other words, the Federate Council of the State 
of New York, inchiding no less than five Dioceses 
acting directly under this Canon, asked for certain 
powers, and amongst others the power of having a 
court of appeal in the State of New York. The 
Convention debated over it, and finally laid it on 
the table on the groimd that the Federate Coimcil of 
the State of New York had the power to do all this 
thing withoat any such resolution on the part of this 
Convention, whereas the Canon says expressly that 
they must ask the approval cf this Convention. 
They sent up and asked for that approval, and when 
they asked for it it was laid on the table on the 
groimd that they did not need to have any such ap- 
proval ; and what has been the consequence ? 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Is the 
gentleman quoting from the Convention Jounial 
that that was the ground ? 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. No, sir. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Or is it an 
opinion ? 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. The ground 
is here, and I will read it. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island, The decision, I un- 
derstand, was that it was in the power of any one 
of the Dioceses of New York to form a Court of 
Appeals, and the others could unite with it if they 
chose, but not that the Federate Council as such had 
that power. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I have the 
resolution here : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the Greneral Conrention doth hereby approve 
such of the powers proposed to be exercised by the 
Federate Council of the State of New York, as are set 
forth in the sections 1 and 2 of Article l,and in Article 
2 of the Declaration of Powers submitted for the 
approval of the General Convention; but doth de- 
cline to approve Section 3 of Article 1 of the said 
Declaration of Powers, for the reason that Article 
6 of the Constitution confers upon each Diocese in 
said State the power to institute the mode of trjang 
Presbyters and Deacons therein, including a Court 
of Appeals, if such Diocese elects to institute 
such tribunal for itself; and whether 
such Appellate Court shall also be the 
Appellate Court of any other of the Dioceses in said 
State, is a matter of discretion and concurrent 
choice on the part of the Conventions of such other 
Dioceses respectively. But the approval of powers 
hereby given is upon the express condition that the 
regulations proposed to be enacted, as suggested in 
Article 2 of the Declaration of Powers aforesaid, 
shall be accepted and approved by the Conventions 
of all the Dioceses in said State ; and it is hereby 
further declared that the General Convention doth 
hereby reserve to itself the right to withdraw the 
approval of powers hereby given at its pleasure." 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The gentle- 
man's time has expired. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move that 
the Deputy be allowed to go on. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. It is evi- 
dent that the Convention felt that the Federate 
Council of the State of New York could form such 
Court of Appeals, nevertheless. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. Allow me to in- 
terrupt the gentleman. The position taken by 
the Convention was that it was within the power 
of any one Diocese to establish a Court of Appeals, 



to which either or all the other Dioceses might at- 
tach themselves if they saw proper, but not to give 
the Federate Coimcil that power. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Yes, I un- 
derstand. The point I was going to come at was 
this: With that peculiar feeling which I think be- 
longs to all our Conventions, it is very evident that 
i the Federate Council of the State of New York 
j wanted to get the approval of the General Con- 
vention before it did anything, even tbough it 
seemed as though it had that right. Now I 
come to my argument. The Convention did not 
grant this request. The result was that the Fede- 
rate Council of the State of New York has never 
met since. It squelched, it killed it dead. It wanted 
certain powers. The Convention told it that it had 
those powers. Probably the members of the vari- 
I ous Dioceses were not quite sure on the subject, but 
at any rate the result was that the Federate Council, 
for the time being, ceased to exist. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. It only sleeps. 
Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Allow me as I 
made the motion to extend the gentleman's time to 
make one statement more. That was not the reason 
why the Federate Council of New York went 
to sleep ; but in the only meeting we had, the Bishop 
of Long Island moved that that Council adjourn 
j sine die ; I amended the motion that we should 
adjourn to meet at the call of the Bishop 
I of New York. The idea was preva- 
I lent that having simply made this motion 
the Federate Council went out of existence, 
I became nothing ; and it was with great diflBculty I 
I could persuade those about me to vote for the mo- 
j tion to adjourn to meet at the call of the President, 
i in order, at any rate, to continue the ghost of an 
existence. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. That is 
just it ; it was the ghost of an existence [laughter], 
and having only that sort of thing, it did not think 
it worth while to be revived in any way. 
j The point of my argument is this, that the whole 
i legislation of our Convention, as far as it has gone, 
j has been in favor of a provincial system when that 
provincial system is regarded as a federation 
I of Dioceses within a single State ; it has 
been against any confederation of States mak- 
ing up an artificial provincial system; and our 
whole legislation has been heretofore in favor 
of a steady, natural, and regular growth. Now, I 
am opposed to any artificial provincial system. I 
am in favor of a natural provincial system coming- 
in the regular order of our growth ; and for this 
reason (and the thing is worth the consideration of 
this Convention), there are certain things which this 
Church needs to do which never can be done by a 
solitary Diocese. Take that great question on 
which we have regularly the report of a Standing 
Committee every Convention, and which we never 
do anything about, because we cannot— the great 
question of Christian Education. 

There never can be in our Church any real, true, 
noble Church college except it be supported by 
more than a single Diocese. It must have at least 
the command and the support of one whole State. 
And let me say, that the one thing which recom- 
mends, I believe, that new and rising institution 
in the South to the minds of churchmen is the fact 
that the Bishops of the Southern Church have or- 
ganized, as it were, in this respect, a provincial sys- 
tem, and ten Bishops have united together to sup- 
port a great university. 

There are a variety of other things besides Chris- 
tian education, for I believe it will be found that 
there are just three things in which this Church 
needs organization. It needs the organization of 
its laymen. It needs to teach them that no man 
who is not a member of this Church has a right to 



36? 



do anything in the way of its legislation. It needs 
to organize the power and work of its Bishops and 
cathedrals, and it needs to organize the work of its 
Dioceses in a federation in each State, 

Therefore, I trust that this House will do nothing 
which will seem to imply that we do not mean in 
due time to have a provincial system, however much 
people may object to that ai-tificial pi'ovincial sys- 
tem, which possibly is open to the great objections 
which have been mentioned in this report, and 
which my co-Deputy from Wisconsin brought forth 
in a speech the other day. 

I therefore move, inasmuch as I suppose it is im- 
possible for this House to do anything now, that we 
do not pass this resolution, but that we lay it on the 
table. I move that the resolution, " That, in the 
judgment of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
it is not expedient to establish a Provincial System 
for this Church, " be laid on the table. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. We ought to have 
an opportunity to answer this argument. Are we 
to be choked down in this way ? I ask five min- 
utes. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. T am quite 
willing to withdraw my motion to allow Mr. Rug- 
gles to be heai d. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I am sorry the 
task has not fallen to a person having more physi- 
cal strength. I must be very brief. The gentle- 
man from Wisconsin has missed the whole question 
entirely. What he wants is a system of thirty 
federate councils. We have no great objection to 
enlarging the federate council, though we thought 
it a very feeble and sickly child at the best. Fed- 
eral councils are liable to the fundamental 
objection of the provincial system, to wit: that 
no intermediate body is necessary between 
the Dioceses and the General Convention. What- 
ever may be the real working power of those interme- 
diate bodies, that is the objection to them. No such 
bodies are needed. What power is not exercised 
at home in the Diocese, should be reserved to this 
body. We have tried the Federate Council in this 
State. That measure has been allowed to be tried, 
but it has led to no practical result. It has shown 
that it is of no efficacy or usefulness whatever. 
The only power of any sort of consequence was to 
make a Court of Appeals. It is now a conceded fact 
that you cannot find imity among the five Bishops. 
The moment you put them together, they fall apart. 
I have heard them all talk on the subject. It is an 
utterly useless fiction. It is the most wretched 
bantling that was ever produced. It is of no possi- 
ble use whatever. It died still-born. It perished 
on the spot. That is the windmill the gentleman 
from Wisconsin has talked about. 

He says we are reactionary, that we have been 
amused, misled, deceived by an imaginary idea of 
a system of Archbishops and Patriarchs, t want 
to resist its initiation. Such a system is entirely in- 
applicable to our great continent, extending from 
ocean to ocean. 

My friend from Wisconsin is for a fed- 
erate system. I say it is impossible to 
build anything on such an imaginary basis. 
It perished by its own debility. But I 
do make war on this great Provincial system, 
which takes power from this General Convention 
and organizes Dioceses together according to sec- 
tions. It can work only for schism. It is a danger- 
ous system. If you make these provinces of any 
value, they must be dangerous to us in the United 
States. But I hope we shall not be deluded by any 
such scheme. I ask you to let it alone. Do not 
touch it. 

Mr. WILDER, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President 
and gentlemen, I will not detain you more than two 
or three minutes. I do not intend to engage in an 



I argument on this proposition, but I am desirous 
I that you shall understand, as clearly as I can make 
' you understand, the position of this Committee, 
j and I wish to say, in the first place, that I and this 
! Committee, so far as I understand the Committee, 
1 regard the provincial system, which was the subject 
j matter i-ef erred to us, just as unlike the question of 
I a confederation of Dioceses comprised within the 
I geograpliical limits of a State, as one thing can be 
unlike another. 

What was it that was referred to this Committee 
on Constitutional Amendments ? The first para- 
graph in this report shows : "The Committee on 
I Constitutional Amendments, to whom were refer- 
i red memorials and other papers presenting the 
I question of the expediency of devising a ' Provincial 
System for the Church. ' " What is the provincial 
system as it is understood throughout the 
length and breadth of this land ? It is the organizia- 
tion of four or five or half a dozen provinces, com- 
j)rising in those four, five, or half a dozen the whole 
territory of the United States. It is that system 
which we believe to be unwise — if I am not mis- 
taken, a conclusion on which this Committee unani- 
mously agreed. 

Mr. McCRADY, of South Carolina. No ; I beg 
pardon. 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. I withdraw the 
assertion ; but we did not touch, nor did we intend 
to touch, because it was not referred to us, nor did 
we discuss or examine, except by an incidental re- 
mark now and then, the question of the confedera- 
tion of Dioceses for certain local purposes, 
within certain limits, in the same State. 
It is the other, the more comprehensive, and in our 
judgment the dangerous thing at which this report 
is aimed, and at nothing else. It may be that this 
matter of the confederation of Dioceses within the 
territorial limits of a State may have within itself 
vital power and vital energy. I am inclined to think, 
notwithstanding I differ from my senior — senioi* 
in every respect, and superior in every respect— the 
gentleman who first preceded me, that there is 
vitality, there is wholesome power, there is an 
energy that can be made practically available in 
several directions in the confederation of Dioceses 
within the geographical limits of a State, but that 
is not the provincial system, and the fact that this 
confederation in the State of New York has sub- 
stantially or literally died the death is not — 
Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. It sleepeth. 
Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. I say, substantially 
or literally, died the death, or gone to sleep, if you 
please, is not, in my judgment, any good, or sub- 
stantial, or sufficient reason to induce me to believe 
that there is not vital energy in that matter of con- 
federation. I believe that the Diocese of Wisconsin, 
now divided, may develop a Confederation of the 
two Dioceses that will, in a few days, be 
comprised within itself elements that will 
I enable that Diocese to the certain parts of its 
! work better combined and federated ; and the fact 
I that it failed in New York^ to my mind, is not con- 
i elusive evidence that it is necessarily and inher- 
I ently a weakness. But what I desire to insist upon, 
\ and have every gentleman here understand, is that 
I the provincial system is one thing, and that was 
referred to us, and nothing else, and the confedera- 
tion of Dioceses within a State is another thing, 
with which we have not dealt, 
j Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. If membei-s will 
j look around they will see what a House we have de- 
liberating on a large question. Some of us have 
something to say on this matter. I only want to 
say now that I see distinctions made between the 
confederation of Dioceses within a State and out- 
side. I had the idea that in this Church State 
lines did not exist, and that there mig^ht 



368 



be grounds upon which we might speak of 
Dioceses as existing only in the Church, and not in 
this State or that State; but perhaps I am wrong. 
At all events, what I mean to say now is, that it is a 
very large question, and I appeal to gentlemen whe- 
ther the members now present are sufficient to justi- 
fy us in voting upon it. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. We are only 
going to act to do nothing. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I merely 
move to lay the resolution on the table. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. Very well; I 
have no objection to that. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A motion to lay 
on the table is not debatable. 

Mr. KING-, of Long Island. I move to substitute 
an indefinite postponement. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I will ac- 
cept that. You cannot move a substitute for a mo- 
tion to lay on the table. I accept that in lieu of my 
motion. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The mo- 
tion now is to postpone the whole question in- 
definitely. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. If that is de- 
batable, I have a few words to say. [" Order ! 
Order !"] 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is 
debatable. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I will say a 
few words. Judge Wilder, in my opinion, is per- 
fectly right. Tills idea that was before the Com- 
mittee was simply and solely the idea of putting a 
quantity of States together artificially in a so- 
called system. That is the sole , thing that 
was before them, and that is what Judge Wilder con- 
demns, and what this Convention condemns. Now I 
wiU say that the idea that is before Judge Wilder 's 
mind, and before Dr. De Koven's mind, is the idea 
of a Confederation of Sees within a State, which 
idea I claim is vital, although it has gone asleep in 
the State of New York. I am perfectly content, 
having made this explanation, to take choice of 
what the House does, either to indefioitely postpone 
it, or to pass the resolution that is brought before us 
by the Committee. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is 
on the motion to postpone indefinitely. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
move to lay the whole subject on the table. That 

t/ctkOS pi'GCGciGHC©. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion to 
lay on the table is not debatable. 

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 

On motion the House adjourned till Monday at 
nine a.m. 

♦-.^ 

TWENTY-THIRD DAY. 

Monday, November 3. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
nine a.m. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psalter 
by Rev. Samuel M. Haskins, D.D., of Long Island. 
The Lessons were read by Rev. Christopher S. Lef- 
fingwell, of Maine. The Creed and Prayers were 
said by Rev. George Leeds, d.d., of Maryland, who 
also pronounced the Benediction. 

The minutes of the proceedings of Saturday last 
were read and approved. 

CHURCH MUSIC. 

The PRESIDENT appointed Rev. Dr. Beach, of 
New York, in place of Rev. Dr. Benedict, of Georgia, 
upon the Committee of Conference in reference to 
the Canon " Of Church Music, " 



STANDARD BIBLE. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia, submitted the 
following resolution, wMch was agreed to : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That the Joint Coiumittee to examine the proof- 
sheets of the proposed standard Bible be continued." 

MISSIONARY BISHOPS. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolma, presented 
the following report: 

"The Committee on Canons have had under con- 
sideration a resolution proposing that, in case of 
nominations to the House of Deputies of Missionary- 
Bishops, the House of Bishops shall nominate to the 
House of Deputies two persons for the office, and 
that a majority of the Deputies of each order shall 
be necessary to an election, and recommend the 
adoption of the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the further consideration of the 
resolution proposing to amend Subsection 1 of 
Section 9, Canon 13, Title I." - 

The resolution was agreed to. 

REPORT OF THE REGISTRAR. 

The SECRETARY presented the following report 
and accompanying resolution : 

" The'Registrar of the General Convention respect- 
fully reports : 

" That in consequence of his removal from his for- 
mer residence in New Jersey, the various pamph- 
lets, documents and other articles in his charge are 
at present deposited in different places. 

" 1. The more valuable documents are in his own 
apartments in the city of Buffalo. 

"3. The pamphlets, etc., are stowed near his form- 
er abode in New Jersey. 

' ' 3. The gold alms-basin presented by the Univei'si- 
ty of Oxford is deposited in the vaults of the Mechan- 
ics' Bank in the city of New York, 

" This arrangement will continue but a short time 
longer, as the entire collection, unless with the ex- 
ception of the alms-basin, will be gathered and de- 
posited in a safe and accessible place in the viUage 
of Geneva, N. Y. , with the benefit of the personal 
supervision of the assistant registrar, the Rev. Dr. 
Perry. 

" The registrar respectfully asks that the treas- 
urer of the Convention be authorized to pay the 
fee of sixty-seven dollars to the porter of the Me- 
chanics' Bank, for care and service in regard to the 
alms-basin during six years past. He found, on en- 
quiry, that a compartment in the vaults of a safe 
deposit company, large enough to contain the alms 
basin, would cost more than the fee, and therefore 
put the basin in the hands of the porter of the bank, 
who has also charge of the Trinity Church plate. 
Considering the time and responsibility it covers, 
he deems the fee only reasonable, and asks that it 
be paid, venturing, should it seem otherwise to the 
Convention, to suggest that, except in the case of 
the Book of Record of Consecration of Bishops, 
this is the only charge for expenses that has been 
presented by the Registrar during the more than 
twenty years that he has held the office. 

" October, 1874. J. H. HOB ART. 

"Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to 
draw on the Treasurer, so as to pay the charges for 
the care and keeping of the alms-basin belonging to 
the General Convention, on the order of the Regis- 
trar or his Deputy." 

The resolution was agreed to, 

LECTIONARY FOR LENT, ETC, 

The House proceeded to the consideration of the 
Calendar according to the order made on Satur 
day. 



The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will state the 
first business ou the Calendar. 

The SECRETARY. The first business on the 
Calendar is the report of the Joint Committee to 
prepare a Lectionary for week days in Lent ; and 
it has been asked that by general consent the reso- 
lution of the Rev. Dr. Beach, offered on the 20th 
day, respecting the proposed Lectionary for week 
days in Lent, together with the message No. 60 from 
the House of Bishops, on the same subject, be con- 
sidered at the same time. 

Mr. SHEFPEY, of Virginia. I ask that the mes- 
sage of the House of Bishops be read. 

The SECRETARY. Message No. 60 is as fol- 
lows: 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That the Table of Lessons, reported by the Joint 
Committee on the Table of Lessons for week days in 
Lent, be authorized for use until the next General 
Convention ; provided, the same shall be approved 
by the Bishop of each Diocese or missionary district 
respectively. 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring). 
That the Joint Committee be continued in charge 
of this matter for its more thorough consideration, 
and to afford opportunity for such improvements as 
may be suggested by its actual use. 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That the Table of Lessons for the Ember and Roga- 
tion days presented herewith be authorized for use 
on the same conditions as the Table of Lessons for 
Lent." 

When the message was received, Rev. Dr. Beach, 
of New York, offered the following resolution, 
as a substitute, which was placed on the Calendar: 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the Lectionary for week days in Lent, report- 
ed by the Joint Committee on that subject, together 
with that for the Rogation and Ember Days, pre- 
sented by the same Committee, is hereby proposed 
as an addition in the Prayer-Book, and that it be 
made known by the Secretary of this body to the 
Convention of every Diocese of this Church, in ac- 
cordance with the provision of Article VIII. of the 
Constitution, as matter for final action at the next 
General Convention." 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Is that word 
"addition" ? 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. The word "ad- 
dition" is used so that the lessons in the Prayer- 
Book may also be used. This is an alternative. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Do I under- 
stand that the resolutions of the House of Bishops 
give us leave, if we pass them, to use these Lessons 
until the next General Convention ; whereas, if we 
pass Dr. Beach's resolution, it is obliged to go down 
to the different conventions, and must be acted upon 
at the next General Convention ? 

The SECRETARY. You are right, sir. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I therefore 
move that the resolution of the Deputy from New 
York be laid on the table, if it is before us, in order 
that we may take up the resolutions of the House of 
Bishops. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I hope the gen- 
tleman will not make that motion, because there is 
a diflSculty about adopting the resolutions of the 
House of Bishops as being unconstitutional. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I will with- 
draw the motion in order that that may properly be 
discussed. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I would much pre- 
fer myself the resolutions which have come to us from 
the House of Bishops, because they would relieve us 
at once ; but as I understand it, this, as an addition 
to the Prayer-Book, has to take a certain course un- 
der the Eighth Article of our Constitution. There- 
fore I offer this as a substitute. I presume the reso- 



lutions came from the House of Bishops through 
oversight. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. What will be 
the effect of this resolution of Dr. Beach's ? 

The PRESIDENT. It is an amendment of the 
Constitution adopted here, for the present, provi- 
sionally, sent down to the Dioceses, and to be ratified 
at the next General Convention. If the next Gen- 
eral Convention should choose to do so, then it be- 
comes an alteration of the Constitution, not before, 
and it becomes also under that article of the Con- 
stitution an addition to the Prayer-Book to the 
Calendar of Lessons. 

Kev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. I move the 
adoption of the resolution of the Deputy from New 
York. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I understand that 
constitutionally we cannot adopt the resolutions of 
the House of Bishops. 

The PRESIDENT. That seems to be the general 
sense of the House. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North CaroUna. May I 
call attention to the provision made in the present 
Lectionary that on certain days of fasting and 
prayer it is made competent that certain lessons 
may be provided i I do not suppose it was the in- 
tention of the Church in making this preface to 
provide for Lent, but the question is whether liberal 
provision is not made, and whether we cannot ob- 
tain the use of this Lectionary at once. I say I do 
not believe that was the intention ; I only call the 
attention of the Convention to it, in order that they 
may weigh that liberty well in voting upon this 
question. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I think that it is 
safer that we should go properly to work. It is one 
way to do a thing properly, and another way to do 
it by a side blow. Let us take the proper course. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. The only 
difficulty about passing the resolution of the Deputy 
from New York is this : This is the last day of the 
session. It is an amendment to the Constitution or 
to the Prayer-Book. I do not knovv^ which. It will 
go up to the House of Bishops, and there are ninety- 
nine chances to one hundred that they will not con- 
cur, that it will pass over, and so we shall get no 
Lectionary. Now I hope I may be able to call still 
more definitely the attention of the House to the 
remarks of the Deputy from North Carolina. 
There is a Rubric in the Book of Common Prayer 
which permits the Bishops to put forth special les- 
sons for fast days ; and though it is true that proba- 
bly in the intention of that Rubric it was not meant 
to apply to Lent days, nevertheless it certainly is 
not wrong to interpret the Rubric in its plain, literal 
sense. And if that be so, the resolutions sent down 
to us by the House of Bishops for our concurrence 
are simply the expression of their determination to 
set forth lessons for certain fast days. 

Mr. SHEFPEY, of Virginia. But the Rubric re- 
fers to each Bishop of a Diocese. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Vfisconsin. In that re- 
spect the resolutions leave it to the Dioceses to ap- 
prove. The resolutions of the House of Bishops 
provide for that. Simply they express the opinion 
that the Bishop of a Diocese has a right to do what 
this Rubric in the Prayer-Book permits him to do; 
and therefore this Constitutional objection, which 
I believe is a very serious one in this Rubric as in 
any other, I think we can honestly and fairly get 
over on the principle of a liberal interpretation of 
the Rubrics. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Let me read the 
Rubric : 

"And, on days of fasting and thanksgiving, ap- 
pointed either by the civil or by the ecclesiastical 
authority " — 

Not by the regular order of the Prayer-Book, but 



370 



days appointed either by the Bishop or by the Gov- 
ernor — on such days the Psalter is presented one 
way. Now, lower down : 

"And, on days of fasting and thanksgiving, the 
same rule is to obtain as in reading the Psalms. " 

That is, on days of fasting and thanksgiving ap- 
pointed hy the civil or ecclesiastical authority. 
Those are special days, not days set down in the 
ordmary Calendar of the year. We cannot, under 
these Publics, make that change. It is on special 
days, as it always has been interpreted, and iievei- 
on the days of Lent or the Ember days. It is simply 
dodging the language. It is not the fair interpreta- 
tion of the language, as every one will see on re- 
flection. 

I want the Lectionary as much as any man here. 
I think our present Lectionary in Lent is a terrible 
burden, continually in our way, and I would be 
very glad if we could attain this without violatmg 
the principles of the Constitution ; but you camiot, 
under tliis Constitution, except by two Conven- 
tions, alter the Prayer-Book. By the Eighth Arti- 
cle of the Constitution it takes two Conventions to 
do it. The proposition of Rev. Dr. Beach, it seems 
to me, is a regular and orderly one ; while there is 
an insuperable difficulty in the way of the propo- 
sition of the Bishops. I move that we non-concur 
in the message of the House of Bishops. 

The PRESIDENT. I suppose the proper way is 
to pass the resolution of Dr. Beach as an amend- 
ment to the resolutions sent down by the House of 
Bishops. 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. That was my 
motion preceding this. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I offered my 
i-esolution as a substitute for the resolution that 
came to us from the House of Bishops. I do not 
know but that it will be necessary to move a non- 
conciirrence in the first place. 

Rev. Mr. M APPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
ask if there is anything really contradictory in these 
two propositions. As I understand, there is at the 
present time a Lectionary which is permitted to be 
used in the Church of England. Now, why should 
we not permit the same Lectionary to be used here, 
under certain restrictions, for the same period of 
time permitted in the Church of England ? Then, if 
gentlemen wish permanently to adopt such a Lec- 
tionary, why not take the initiatory steps at the 
present time, in order that this may be done, so 
that no one who has such wonderful regai'd for the 
Constitution can be in any way offended ? We 
ought to keep, indeed, to the strict letter of the law ; 
but there is a difference of interpretation in regard 
to that law. Why may we not adopt the recom- 
mendation of the House of Bishops, and if gentle- 
men wish also to adopt the other., adopt that too ? 

The PRESIDENT. The first question is upon the 
resolution offered by the Deputy from New York. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOV'EN, of Wisconsin. Do I imder- 
stand that if we vote now, we vote on this amend- 
ment of the Deputy from New York, and that that 
is an amendment to the message sent down by the 
House of Bishops ? 

Mr. OTIS, of Ilhnois. No ; not an amendment. 

Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. I should like to ask 
why the substitute may not be offered as an inde- 
pendent proposition, and let us adopt both ? I do 
not see any incompatibihty. 

The PRESIDENT. I do not either ; but the reso- 
lution of Dr. Beach is the question before us. After 
disposing of that, the House can then deal with the 
message from the House of Bishops as seems proper 
to itself. 

Mr. MASSIE. I suggest to the Deputy that he 
withdraw his substitute. 
The PRESIDENT. Why not pass on that as it is 

now before the House ? 



Mr. MASSIE, of Virginia. Because I understand 
he offers it as a substitute for the resolution of the 
House of Bishops. I want to vote for both. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I suggest to the gen- 
tleman from Virginia that we ought to act accord- 
ing to the Constitution. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I suggest that the vote be 
taken on the resolution of Dr. Beach on its own 
merits. It is just v/hat we want as the beginning of 
a constitutional amendment to give us a new Lec- 
tionary. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I would prefer 
the other mode for this reason: Inasmuch as the 
Bishop's message presents a constitutional difficulty, 
it will inevitably have to be passed or rejected by 
a vote by Dioceses ajad Orders. I v>70uld not be satis- 
fied to take a vote upon a constitutional question ex- 
cept in that way. That will take some time, and 
we have a very thin House. It would not probably 
represent the Church in Convention to take a vote by 
Dioceses and orders here now. But the question 
presented to us is a very simple one. If we adopt 
Dr. Beach's motion as a substitute for the resolutions 
of the House of Bishops, it then goes over there, and 
their concurrence ends the matter ; whereas, in the 
other way we should have to take two votes on each 
proposition separately. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. If we vote on the 
proposition of the House of Bishops to amend the 
Prayer-Book, we must vote by Dioceses and Ordere, 
because if we vote yea we propose an alteration. 
Then if we amend the message of the House of 
Bishops by adopting the substitute proposed by my 
friend from New York, Ave shall have to vote upon 
that proposition as amended, which will be a propo- 
sition to alter the Prayer-Book ; and the A'ofce by Dio- 
ceses and Orders must come either way; and it is 
the simplest form merely to submit this as an amend- 
ment to the message of thf. House of Bishops ; and in 
that way, if we adopt this amendment, we shall 
escape the vote by Orders and Dioceses. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. That is my prop- 
osition. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I am perfectly 
satisfied that when the Bishops had this matter in 
hand (these resolutions were drawn by Bishop 
Yomig), they never thought of the constitutional 
objection or obstruction, and I am perfectly satisfied 
that the moment their attention is called to it in the 
way in which I propose, the whole difficulty will be 
removed and the matter will pass through without 
any trouble at all. 

Rev, Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The Constitu- 
tion reads as follows : "No alteration or addition 
shall be made m the book of Common Prayer," and 
soon, "until proposed in one general convention 
and passed in another." If this House unanimously 
pass upon the act of the Bishops, it is not constitu- 
tionally passed then ; it is not the law of the Church 
then ; we have simply violated the Constitution 
and accomplished nothing. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I, with very 
great regret, am obliged to believe that we cannot 
adopt the resolutions of the House of Bishops with- 
out violating Article 8 of the Constitution. With 
very great regret, I say, I am brought to this con- 
clusion. 1 think, however, that the resolution of 
the Reverend Deputy from New York would fail of 
the whole scope and purport that he himself de- 
sires and that all of us would desire. If we now 
find, on careful examination of this proposed Lenten 
Lectionary during the next three years, that it does 
not suit us, then the result would be that we should 
be obliged three years hence to adopt that Lection- 
ary or none. I do think that the Lectionary ought 
to be within the power of this Convention, and 
tiierefoie I wouM propose, if it is parliamentary 
and orderly, to substitute for the amendment of the 



371 



Reverend Deputy from New York the following, as 
an addition to Article VIII. of the Constitution : 

"Provided, however, that the Lectionary may be 
Changed at any time by the concurrent action of 
both Houses of General Convention. " 

In this way if, on examination, the Committee 
which made up this Lenten Lectionary should be- 
come convinced that it is not the best*^ Lectionary, 
but that another and better one could be presented 
to us three years hence, we may then adopt that in- 
stead of this which has been proposed to us. 

It is very necessarj^ that we should get through 
our woi'k, and I do not wish to speak long on the 
subject, but I would move this as a substitute for 
the motion of the Rev. Deputy from New York. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would re- 
spectfully suggest that the gentleman from New 
York amend his resolution to conve;^ this idea : that 
a committee of three or six be appointed to receive 
suggestions, and to propose emendations of this 
Lectionary, on the idea that the whole Lectionary 
being presented as achano e at the same time, it may 
be critically amended during the three years as pro- 
posed, and at the next General Convention we can 
act on the Lectionary as then presented by that 
Committee ; that is, either adopting this one or 
making in it such corrections as they shall then pre- 
sent. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The only way to 
reach it is by the amendment of the gentleman 
from Alabama by amending the Constitution as he 
proposes. I think it would be well to have a com- 
mittee to revise this Lectionary and report to the 
next General Convention, but we must adopt it or 
reject it as a whole. 

Mr. SHEFFE Y, of Virginia. The order for the 
Psalter and for the reading of the Holy Scriptures 
might be amended so as to cover the entire ground, 
and I think that would suit the views of members 
on aU sides. I agree, after reflection, that this 
change in the order of services cannot be made 
without an amendment to the Constitution. In the 
order for the reading of the Holy Scriptures, this 
clause occult: 

" And the same discretion of choice is allowed on 
occasions of Ecclesiastical Conventions, and those 
of charitable collections." 

If you would just add to that order, "and for 
Lenton services the House of Bishops may pre- 
scribe a Lectionary," whatever is desired can be 
secured by amending that clause "of the order of 
the services of the Church," without confining oui-- 
selves, as my friend from Alabama objects, to any 
form of Lectionary constitutional in its character. 
If the House is willing to entrust the construction 
of this Lectionary to the House of Bishops, it can 
be done by a simple addition to that clause. This, 
of course, would have to go down to the dioceses as 
an amendment to that order. It takes the same 
course precisely by simply an addition to the order 
for reading the Psalter and reading the Scriptures, 
that the House of Bishops may prescribe a Lection- 
ary for Lenten services, and other days such as 
Rogation and Ember days, if it be desired. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of AVisconsin. May I sug- 
gest to the Deputy from Virginia, that there is this 
difficulty about the Lectionary : When our Lection- 
ary was established it was a, different Lectionary 
from that of the Church of England, and now the 
Church of England has, within the past three years, 
put forth a new Lectionary. Now, if this is passed, 
we shall only have the opportunity of putting out 
such Lessons for Lent and other fast days, but no 
opportunity of amending the whole Lectionary, 
which is very much needed, though perhaps not 
quite as much as the other; whereas, if Dr. Ful- 
ton's amendment to the Constitution passes, any 
General Convention can take up the subject of the 



Lectionary, and with all the safeguards that are 
thrown around concurrent action, put forth a new 
Lectionary, both for Simdays and week-days. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virgmia. Will the gentleman 
from Alabama I'ead this proposition again ? 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. It is to add to 
Article VIII. of the Constitution these words : 
" Provided, howevei', that the Lection aiy may be 
; changed at any time by concurrent action of both 
Houses of General Convention." 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Does that cover the 
use of the Psalter ? 
! Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. No, sir; that 
, would have to be put in if you want to make a 
change there. 
Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I object to Dr. 
: Fulton's amendment, in terms as introducing one of 
the most extraordinary Rubrics that can be, " Pro- 
; vided that the Lectionary may be changed at any 
time." I do not want that temptation to lie upon 
the pages of the Prayer-Book, to the absolute un- 
certainty and restlessness and readiness to move 
that there is in this people at this time. 
Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. He does 
: not propose it as an amendment to the Prayer-Book, 
but as an amendment to the Constitution. 
Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. He proposes, 
i I understand, that the Lectionary may be changed 
! at any time. 

' Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Not in the 
: Prayer-Book. It is an amendment in the Consti- 
^ tution. 

Rev. Dr. ADAJ-IS, of Wisconsin. Well, it is a 
constitutional Prayer-Book ; and the putting in of 
' such a principle as that, by which it may be changed 
at any time, is not a good principle to me, and I be- 
lieve on consideration it will be so regarded all 
over the House. I myseK have read the service of 
the Chmxh daily for nearly thirty years, and I 
must honestly say that the Lent Lessons are to me 
a very strange thing. They vary daily and are 
entirely unsuited to the daily service in 
Lent, and some of them to any time, and I do 
; wish that we had a Lent Lectionary for our 
pm-pose; and yet there are so many gentlemen 
here whom I respect who have expressed a different 
opinion, and there is such a possibihty of various 
arguments, that I do not submit anything to this 
Convention, but I think the matter ought to be de- 
liberated upon more than it can be now at the 
end of this session. I- think the best plan at last 
i would be to submit the consideration of this whole 
' matter to a commission of Bishops and members of 
'. this House, v/ho should take it into their full 
thought and examine the various things that have 
been proposed before us, and give us their mature 
and deliberate judgment. 
Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. May I ask 
1 whether this would give us immediate relief ? If it 
did, I should vote for it. I think it is a step in the 
: right direction. Undoubtedly, I should be very 
: glad if some measure could be taken by which this 
\ relief would be immediately granted. I will will- 
! inglv and gladly vote for the proposition if I can. 
j Tlie PRESIDENT. The only provisional relief 
' vou can receive is from your own Diocesan. 
I " Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. It seems to me 
1 that it is entirely too late in the session to propose a 
new substantial change in the Constitution of the 
Church. It is conceded on all sides that we can 
have no relief for three years. The proposition of 
the Deputy from New York, provides what we all 
believe will be substantial relief at the end of three 
years ; that is, a Lectionary which has been care- 
fully revised, and is now presented to us, which will 
reniain before the Church for three years, and may 
be then adopted as a whole without any Constitu- 
tional change whatever. 



372 



Now, the proposition of the Deputy from Ala- 
bama will go to add still further to the unsettled 
feeling which prevails in the Church, arising from 
the many changes which we have proposed in the 
Constitution. What was adopted on Saturday will 
be a very thorough change, if it shall be finally 
agreed to, three years hence. I think now we ought 
to stand upon what we have done, without further 
movements in that direction, I hope, therefore, the 
proposition of the Deputy from New York will be 
adopted, which is certainly a movement in the right 
direction, and will give us three years hence a Lec- 
tionary far preferable to what we have ; and if then 
we thinlc proper to go further in the same direction, 
we shall be able to do so. This Church moves, and 
ought to move slowly, even in a good direction. I 
hope, therefore, that the proposition of the gentle- 
man from Alabama will not be pressed, but that we 
may come to a vote upon that of the Deputy from 
New York. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
hope the proposed amendment will be adopted. I 
do not see the least danger in it. It is agreed that 
the subject of the Lectionary needs attention. I do 
not believe that when the provision of the Constitu- 
tion was inserted protecting the Book of Common 
Prayer from the changes except by a notice of 
three years, attention was drawn to the subject of 
the Lessons. It seems to me that it is excessive con- 
servativism to say that you cannot trast the en- 
tire House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and 
Lay Deputies, with the selection of proper portions 
of Scripture to be read in the Church, and with pre- 
scribing the rule therefor. We are not changing any 
Scripture. We are always reading the Scrip- 
tures. 

The present portion of the Lectionary now before 
us for consideration is taken by a mere arbitrary 
rule without regard to the subject-matter. The 
gentleman from Alabama proposes to give the con- 
trol of this particular subject of the selection of 
Scripture lessons for all times to the General Con- 
vention. It will take three years by any process. 
If we adopt the proposition before us as originally 
reported, we shall have accomplished that result in 
three years, but we shall be six years olf now from 
any other possible result in the matter of the Lec- 
tionary. 

There is no doubt that this proposed Lectionary 
for Lent will be adopted by the next Convention 
imder its constitutional power, and therefore it will 
go into force just as quick as it we adopt it as a pro- 
posed amendment to the Prayer-Book. i think 
every one here is prepared to-day to vote that the 
power of the selection of Lessons, and prescribing a 
rule for it, should always rest in the General Con- 
vention, and need not necessarily be de- 
layed three years when a change is pro- 
posed, for we are not drawing on our 
own discretion or our own wisdom for the Les- 
sons; we are always drawing on the inspired Word 
of God. When that is the case, it is a sufficient 
check upon any Convention or upon any Church, so 
that they cannot go far wrong. 

I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from 
Alabama will be adopted, for it will secure the ob- 
ject intended by the Message of the House of Bish- 
ops, and also this further control, so that if we find 
any slight change needed in that Lectionary we can 
make it. But if we adopt the Message of the House 
of Bishops, and that Lectionary should be found 
faulty in any particular however slight, we should 
have to wait three years before we could change it. 
The idea that because we are at the end of the ses- 
sion we should fail to do anything that changes an 
existing rule, is too excessive cautiousness. Let us 
give the control to all the Bishops and this House of 
the Lectionary, and of providing the rule for the fu- 



ture on that subject. I do not think the Church will 
ever be endangered by the exercise of it. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I am 
very sorry that I cannot agi ee with the gentleman 
who has just spoken, in saying that the whole House 
are ready to consent to the cha,rge of Lectionary, 
or put it in the hands of the House of Bii^hops or the 
General Convention, to change it at any time ; but I 
should like to remind the member of this House that 
coupling the action which is now proposed v\'ith the 
action taken on Saturday in regard to a shortened 
form of service, they are in danger of legislating in 
a manner which means simply to take away all the 
bars that hinder our tampering with the Prayer- 
Book and make changes in the Prayer-Book easy. 
That seems to be the motive of this legislation, simply 
how shall we get at the Prayer-Book ? How can 
we take off the hindrance that the wise conserva- 
tism of the Church has put in our way, so that we 
must scrupulously study every chsinge, and put it 
in the power of a single Convention, which may be 
moved by questions and motives that come up at 
the time and that another three years would sweep 
entirely out of the way — how can we put it in the 
power of a single Convention to make all these 
changes ? And in this connection, let me also re- 
mind members of the singular meaning of their ac- 
tion on Saturday which is coupled with this. One 
of the safeguards taken at the time of the English 
Reformation was to sweep away the diver- 
sity of use which had been complained of 
as an evil and a wrong in the Church 
of England, the use of Sarum, the use of Hereford, 
the use of Bangor, each having its separate use, and 
to bring the Church of England to a uniformity in 
service. But under the plea of making changes in 
the Prayer-Book easy, this House has actually voted 
and granted as far as it is in its power at present to 
return to that old principle of each Diocese having 
its separate use, and the plea of privileged usage in 
opposition to the usage of the Reformation was 
urged from a quarter from which, from its Protes- 
tant character, I hardly expected to see it. I 
certainly thought the reverend gentleman who 
urged it so eloquently was one who would have 
stood by the principles of the English Reformation 
in opposition to what some have called the more 
antiquated principles of the early Church, but he 
abandoned the groimd of the English Reformation 
and went back to primitive ages, in stating 
that it was the primitive custom for each 
Diocese to have its separate use, and, there- 
fore, we ought not to be afraid of it. But the Eng- 
lish Church deliberately abandoned that principle 
of separate use and came back to uniformity. 

Rev. Mr. MARPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. If 
the gentleman refers to anything I said, it only 
shows how little he knows of my Church senti- 
ments. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
give that only as an illustration ; but I say most 
earnestly that the Lectionary of this Church is not 
a piecemeal system, but an entire system : and that 
to tamper with it rashly — to make changes in it 
. easily — to make changes in it without full and care 
ful consideration, will throw us open to the danger 
of having a piece of patchwork as the Lectionary for 
the whole year, if we enter on it thus piece by piece. 
I think it is a subject that ought to be remitted to the 
careful consideration and the lengthened considera- 
tion of a commission, instead of being pushed 
through at the close of the session, with the House 
half full, on the ground that there is no time to con- 
sider it fairly, and that we must get relief somehow 
by fair means or foul. 

' Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I am in 
favor of the proposed Lectionary for Lent. I should 
also favor, very much, the revisal of the present 



373 



Calendar, so as to give us an acceptable Lectionary 
for tlie v.-liole year; but it does seem to me that it is 
too late nosv for us to enter into the considei-ation 
of pi'oposed amendments to the Constitution. I call 
attentioji to the fact that in one amendment pro- 
posed several days ago to Article 8, concurrence 
was refused by the House of Bishops on the very 
ground that it was then too late for them to consi- 
der the matter. On Saturday we sent up an ad- 
dition to the eighth article of the Constitution, 
which, I presume, is now before the House of Bishops. 
And now we have another proviso to the same 
article. If that amendment is adopted by the House 
of Bishops, the wording of this proviso must be 
altered. We have one " proviso " already, and so 
the wording, as proposed, must be changed to 
" provided further. " We are just in this condition 
of tilings ; we do not know where we are, owing to 
the fact that the House of Bishops have not reported 
on the proposed amendment which we agreed to on 
Saturday. 

I am in favor of the proposed Lectionary, as I said, 
but I am utterly opposed to our going into the con- 
sideration of new amendments to the Constitution 
at this late hour of the session ; and without any 
desire to obstruct the progress of these proposed 
amendments if it be the will of the House to go on 
with them, I raise the question whether this is not 
new business which cannot be entered upon without 
the consent of two-thirds ? 

The PRESIDENT. I^o, sir, it is not new busi- 
ness. It is proposed as an amendment to matter 
sent down to us by the House of Bishops, simply 
stating the judgment of this House, that the object 
proposed to be effected by the House of Bishops in 
one way can be most properly effected in another 
way. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. Isub-. 
mit to the ruling of the Chair, but I think it is new 
business. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Vv^isconsin. I wish to 
say, Mr. President, that it seems to me very extra- 
ordinary for gentlemen to get up here and talk 
about new business and about the lateness of the 
session, when everybody knows that this matter of 
shoi'tened services and this matter of the Lectioxiary 
were introduced in the early part of the session, and 
have only been put over because they had to be put 
over; and now, after having put this over to the 
last day of the session, to come in and say '4t is too 
late," is simply to prevent a thing which the mind 
of this Church has been set upon, and which has 
been under consideration, too, since 1868. 

I wish to say further, in reply to the reverend 
gentleman from Central Pennsylvania, that this is 
no movement for the alteration of the text of the 
Prayer-Book. It is simply a movement to allow us 
to use other portions of Scripture than those we 
have been using. There suj'ely can be no danger in 
using a chapter out of St. James instead of another 
chapter out of the same Epistle. There can be no 
danger in using a chapter out of the Prophets in- 
stead of a chapter out of the historical books. It 
does not interfere, it cannot interfere, with any- 
thing that relates to the Prayer-Book. It is simply 
a matter of devotion and propriety. 

Then in the next place let it be considered that we 
are not interfering v/ith a system. The system of 
the Church of England of its lessons was altered at 
the time the American Prayer-Book was revised, 
and nobody can have read for instance Keble's Chris- 
tian Year, without at once feeling and knov,ing 
that our lessons have been different from the les- 
sons of the Church of England as they were at the 
last revision of the English Church, and now the 
English Church has revised its Lectionary again, 
and has put forth what I believe is a very admirable 
Lectionary. This is merely to give the House the 



opportunity of setting forth a proper Lectionary at 
proper times. 

I also want to say that I am surprised that the 
learned Deputy from Central Pennsylvania should 
have so far misunderstood the action of this House 
on Saturday. We never passed any resolution or 
anv amendment to the Constitution permitting Dio- 
ceses to put forth different uses. All we did was to 
permit the General Convention, at some future time, 
if it wanted to do so, to allow the Dioceses to do 
such a thing, which is a very different proposition. 
It is a great way further off from that theory of 
different uses than what he stated. The next 
General Convention, if such a proposition 
is made by the Committee, may vote it down, and 
very likely would. We passed no such resolution 
in our amendment to the Constitution. I trust 
that this amendment which the Deputy from 
Alabama has brought forward may pass, for it 
sim^ply gives the House of Bishops and this House 
the right to put forth a Lectionary ; and do we not 
all know that if the two Houses should decide or 
think it proper to take the matter up, it would be 
considered most carefully ; a commission would be 
appointed ; it would at least take three years before 
vve could get a right Lectionary ? It is simply put- 
ting the matter forward just one little bit. I do 
not believe, even if this is passed, we shall get that 
new Lectionary before six years, or perhaps nine. 
What this is doing is simply to give us a chance to 
have a better Lectionary. ' 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I almiost regret, 
Mr. President, having introduced this amendment, 
because it has given rise to discussion at a very 
late hour of this session of the Convention. I do 
think that this matter is an important one, though 
not half so important as my reverend friend from 
Central Pennsylvania seems to have thought it. I 
should be miwilling that any motion of mine should 
occupy- the attention of the Convention to-da,}- ; and, 
therefore, as, I think, the House has probably made 
up its ^-vilni, and perhaps may agree with myself 
that these matters had, after r:Tl, bet-tor go to a 
commission for the revision of the Rubrics— I do 
not know whether that is best cr not [No, no] — but, 
at all events, it has been presented, to my mind. 
I am simply going to move jiow to lay my own pro- 
position on the table, with the purpose of voting 
against that. 

'Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Move that the vote be taken. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Very well. I 
move that the House vote immediately on my pro- 
position, and I shall vote for it. 
" Mr. SHEPFEY, of Virginia. In order that ample 
guards may be throvv^n around the exercise of the 
power proposed by the gentleman from Alabama, I 
would suggest an addition to his amendment in 
these words : 

" That it shall require a majority of all the mem- 
bers entitled to seats in each House, and of each 
order in the House of Deputies, to adopt such chan- 
ges in the Lectionary." 

So that the question will be presented to us 
whether in the future we are willing to trust a ma- 
jority of all the Bishops, and a majority of all the 
Clerical Deputies, and a majority of aU the Lay 
Deputies entitled to sit in the General Convention, 
to put forth an amended or changed Lectionary for 
the Church— not to do anything in the way of faith 
or practice except, in the language of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, to improve the 
devotional exercises of the people by 
proper selections from the Holy Scriptures. For 
one, I am amazed at the want of trustfulness on the 
part of this House in themselves and in their suc- 
cessors. I do not believe that this Church is to go 
on in all time to come clothed in the armor of the 



374 



mediaeval ages of the past, and fettered by re- 
straints wjiich prevent it from availing itself of the ; 
opportunities to promote tlie cause of religion and ; 
advance the glorj^ of God alongside of the other 
Chi-istian churches of this land. I want our i 
Church to have the chance, the opportunity 
in a constitutional, legal way, to adapt it- ; 
self to the new developments of the time, to 
make it itself, as it ought be, the great mis- 
sionary and evangelical power on this Continent. 
In thaib aspect of the case, w-hilst I am charged to be i 
a stickler in favor of constitutional provisions, ' 
whilst I am in favor of adhering to all the sanctions i 
of the Constitution, I still say that for one I am will- ! 
ing to trust the conservative sentiment, the Chris- 
tian sentiment, the sentiment in favor of law and 
order of a majority of all the members elected to 
this Convention, in all the branches which are i-epre- 
sented here ; and with that addition to the proposi- 
tion of my friend from Alabama, I do think fair, 
safe, and judicious means will be pi-ovided for the 
benefit of our Church in its further operations in the 
world. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I ask gentle- 
men how it would work. If we vote by Dioceses, 
certainly it will be a vote, even if there be not a 
majority of individuals making up the vote ; and 
will it not conflict with that if we imdertake to 
make a majoritv of individuals necessary ? 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. A majority of aU 
the Dioceses, I mean. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I thank my 
friend from Virginia for putting forward what ap- 
pears to me to be so reasonable an amendment to my 
proposition, I accept it with all gratitude, and 1 
think it makes what I have proposed entirely safe. 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. Mr. President, I 
want to say but a few words, but first I desire the 
amendment of the gentleman from Alabama to be 
read, including the amendment offered by the gen- 
tleman from Virginia. 

Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. If 
Virginia joins the movement partr)^, I shall have 
great hope for our Church. The tendency of still- 
ness is always to keep still, and, there iore, we have 
this great power of obsti-uctiveness to overcome. 
One of the most refreshing symptoms I have obser- 
ved in our House is the speech the gentleman from 
Virginia has just made. 

Mr, WILDER, of Minnesota, I believe I have the 
floor, 

Mr, SHEFFEY, of Virginia, I will read the pro- 
position as it stands, the amendment proposed by 
myself being accepted by the learned Clerical De- 
puty from Alabama : 

"Provided, That the Lectionary may be changed 
at any time by concurrent action of both Houses of 
the General Convention ; but it shall require a ma- 
jority of all the Bishops entitled to seats in the 
House of Bishops, and of all the Dioceses entitled to 
be represented in the House of Deputies, to adopt 
such changes in the Lectionary," 

Mr, WILDER, of Minnesota. Mr. President, I un- 
derstand very well the impatience of this House, and 
that that impatience is well founded. We are almost 
in the afternoon of the last day of this Cvnvention, 
and though a,ll agree, as I understand, that some relief 
in this matter is necessary, allow me to suggest that 
we are treading upon dangerou? ground. Let me 
ask you what any member of this Convention would 
say if a proposition were introduced at this hour to 
enact a new Canon, fundamental in its features, 
and undertake to adopt it as a law, without having 
it go through the hands of the Committee on Canons, 
or any other Committee. 

Although I may, with entire respect, I think, 
express the opinion that I do not agree with the 
Chair, but I do not appeal, yet vdthout stopping to 



doubt the proposition that this is not new business, 
we are seeking here, in half an hour, without the 
consideration of a committee, without deliberate 
action, with but few members of the Convention 
present, to adopt an amendment to the Constitution 
that strikes, in my humble judgment, deeper in the 
direction of the Prayer-Book than any proposition 
that bas been before^us during this Convention. 

The Committee on Amendments to the C'onstitu- 
tion reported the other day, and this Convention on 
Saturdav approved it, I believe, to amend the Con- 
stitution intone respect, that by indirection touched 
the Prayer-Book; and what was it ? It was that 
this Convention bv Canon might take action for 
shortened services.^ But how ? By express provi- 
sion m that amendment Umiting that power 
to a compilation from the Moimmg and 
Evening Pravers. The Committee on Amend- 
ments to the Constitution were somewhat doubtful, 
at least we discussed for some time the propriety of 
reaching the question of shortened services by an 
amendment of the Constitution, because it touch- 
ed by indirection, as some thought, the Prayer- 
Book.' But that objection was obviated in the minds 
of many, perhaps all of us, and so of the convention 
i as it would seem, by the vote taken, by the fact that 
: we added to and made a part of the amendment 
; the limitation that such shortened services should be 
! comniled exclusively from the Prayer-Book. 
I Now, the amendment of the gentleman from Ala- 
I bama, sprung upon this Convention, and asked to 
be passed upon affirmatively, without being re- 
1 viewed by any Committee, without going to the 
Committee on Constitutional Amendments, is 
: to amend the Constitution, so that the 
; General Convention hereafter by Canon or by reso- 
lution— I do not remember which, and I do not care 
—may reform and remodel the Lectionary. Is it 
one reform, one remodelling ? No, I say to you as 
i a lawver, that unless I am very much mistaken, the 
I construction of the gentleman's proposition wiU 
enable the General Convention by Canon 
i or resolution to remodel that Lectionary at every 
i single Convention for a hundred years to come, 
i There is no limitation to remodelling. It may re- 
I model three years hence; it may do it six years 
! hence; it may do it nine years hence. I submit to 
' you, gentlenien. that you are introducing into our 
' fundamental law an element of danger, an element 
i fuU of mischief. It is not at alljike the amendment 
i passed upon the other day. ^ ou do not remodel 
1 the Lectionary once, and make it stand there for 
; aye. You do nob impose any Hmit to 
I this proposition to amend the Constitution. 
I submit to you that there is danger in this 
kind of legislation at this hour, without the inter- 
vention of any committee, without any thoughtful 
i consideration, impressed simply and alone by the 
! feeling that pervades your heart and the heart of 
everybody, that relief in some respects is wanted. 
Stimulated, I say, by this universal feeling, there 
is, in my humble judgment, great danger that you 
will do an act that by and by you and I and this 
Church will regret, 

Mr, MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. I do not rise to 
make a speech, but simply to move that we take the 
vote on this question in five minutes. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the vote on 
this proposition be taken in five minutes. 
The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. De ROSSET, of North Carolina, The Dio- 
cese of North Carolina will call for a vote by orders 
on this proposition. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York, The object of 
this amendment, as I understand it, is to enable us 
to get a Lectionai-y, We now wish to get a Lec- 
tionary for Lent. " W e all agree that that is desir- 
able. One has been prepared by a Committee 



375 



■which was appointed six j'-ears ago. I believe it 
has been very carefully prepared, and will 
be accepted by the Clergy of this Church, 
almost, if not quite, unanimously. But, 
sir,- this amendment must go down to the Dio- 
ceses, and come back the next General Convention, 
and then if it fails to i)ass, we are no nearer a new 
Lectionary than we are fco-daj''. By my proposition 
we can reach the new Lectionary in" tln-ee 3^ears, 
and no gentleman is able to point out any way by 
which we can reach it earlier than that. That is 
the earliest period at which it is possible for us to 
reach it. We can, if my substitute passes, reach it 
in thi-ee %'ears. If the amendment to the Constitu- 
tion which is proposed here passes, it is very uncer- 
tain, indeed, whether we can reach it in three 
years. In fact, I do not believe that the proposi- 
tion of the gentleman from Alabama will pass the 
other House, and we are thrown back to the neces- 
sity of waiting six full years before we can possi- 
bly get a new Lectionary for Lent. I, for my 
part, should like to have one to read at our coming 
Lenten season. I wish we could do this immedi- 
ately, but we cannot, and I have adopted the only 
way in which I think it can be done, and the only 
way in which it can be done soon— that is, in three 
years. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. Please state your pro- 
position, sir. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Will the Secre- 
tary read my substitute ? 

Mr. KING-, of Long Island. By adopting the 
substitute of the gentleman from New York we 
shall avoid loose legislation. We ought not to be 
caUed upon to amend our Constitution in the loose 
manner proposed here. 

The Secretary read the substitute proposed by 
Rev. Dr. Beach, as follows : 

''Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring,) 
That the Lectionary for week days in Lent, re- 
ported by the Joint Committee on that subject, to- 
gether w"ith that for the Rogation and Ember Days, 
presented by the same Committee, is hereby pro- 

Eosed as an addition in the Prayer-Book, and that it 
e made known by the Secretary of this body to the 
Convention of every Diocese of this Church, in ac- 
cordance with the provision of Article VIII. of the 
Constitution, as matter for final action at the next 
General Convention." 

Rev, Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I move 
to amend as follows : 

"Resolved, That the Rubric appointing the order 
in which the Psalter is appointed to be read, be 
amended by adding to the fourth paragraph the fol- 
lowing words : ' Or such selections as may have 
been appointed or permitted by the General Con- 
vention :" 

The result wiU be to bring the Lectionary imder 
this provision, and put the direction of the ap- 
pointment of the Lessons just where it should be by 
Rubric, and not by Canon, and make it just as con- 
stitutional as any other legislation before the 
House, 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pemisylvania, I 
rise to a point of order, whether there are not al- 
ready two amendments or substitutes before the 
House ? 

The PRESIDENT. Two amendments are before 
the House. 

Mr, KING, of Long Island, I rise to a point of 
order. You cannot offer ap amendment to a substi- 
tute. The substitute must be acted on, 

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. I suggest to the 
gentleman from Alabama, inasmuch as the two 
propositions are not inconsistent with each 
other, that if we adopt his proposition 
for a proposed constitutional amendment in 
place of the resolution of the gentleman from 



New York, and that should go to the House of Bish- 
ops and be rejected, as it probably would be, then 
we should have nothing at all. I think, therefore, 
that we had better take the vote on the proposition 
of the gentleman from New York first. That will 
give some relief in case it be passed, as it probably 
will be. Then we can take a separate vote on the 
constitutional amendment, because the two may 
run pari passu, and may be each adopted if the 
House thinlvs proper. 

The PRESIDENT. The first question, though, 
is on the amendment proposed by Dr. Fulton. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I ask Dr. P'ulton 
to withdraw his proposition f oi- the present, and let 
us vote on the proposition of the gentleman from 
New York, which is independent of his, not at all 
inconsistent with it, and if we adopt his, then come 
to a vote on that of the gentleman from Alabama, 
which presents an entirely different proposition, be- 
ing a constituent amendment. 

Rev. Mr. MARKS, of Mississippi. I move to lay 
the amendment of Dr. Fidton on the table. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. If 
that motion is insisted on, I shall call for a vote by 
orders. 

Rev. Mr. MARKS, of Mississippi. I submit that 
to reach Mr. Burgwin's point it is necessary to vote 
in this way. If we accept the substitute, we lose 
the opportunity of voting on the proposition of the 
Reverend Deputy from New York. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. In that view of 
the case, I withdi-aw my amendment until that of 
Dr, Beach is voted on. [" All right."] 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
rise to a point of order. Let it be withdrawn now, 
with the understanding by the whole House that 
it shaU be voted on af tei'ward, and that no question 
of order shall be raised. 
Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Certainly. 
Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
suggest to the gentleman from Alabama that he 
j make his amendment an addition to the other, 
j Then if it is adopted, it will be reached ; but if it is 
! voted down we shall stand alone on the other. 
I Rev. Mr. MARKS, of Mississippi. I rise to a 
I question of order. Is the amendment withdi-awn ? 
I Rev, Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I shall present 
j my motion after Dr, Beach's is voted upon, 
I The PRESIDENT. The question is on the propo- 
I sition of the gentleman from New York, 
i Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise to a point 
I of ordei-. I am told that if I withdraw this, I can- 
j not bring it up again. If that is so, I move to lay 
j mine on the table, that I may bring it up again. 
Mr. WILDER, of Miimesota. I submit that the 
two are inharmonious. 
The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the 
j resolution offered by the Deputy from New York 
(Rev. Dr. Beach). 
The resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
move the adoption as an original resolution of the 
proposition of the gentleman from Alabama [Rev. 
Dr. Fulton]. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I call for a vote 
by Dioceses and orders. 
Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I now offer my 
j proposition. 

I Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. This business 
j of altering the Constitution when brought in as an 
I amendment to a resolution might be brought in as 
i not new business; but when the resolution to which 
i it was first offered is passed, it now becomes new 
I business, and, therefore, is out of order, and cannot 
1 be voted on. 

I Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama, I rise to a point 
of order ; it is that I have a right to offer an addi- 
, tional amendment. 



876 



Mr, BURG-WIN, of Pittsburgh. I am opposed to 
the motion of the gentleman from Alabama, but in- 
asmuch as we voted on the proposition of the gen- 
tleman from New York, putting aside this, under 
the view I took, I think a point of order ought not 
to be raised ; but we ought to come to a vote upon 
it. I hope, therefore, the gentleman from Long 
Island will withdraw his objection and let us take 
the vote. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I hope Dr. 
Fulton's proposition will be read by the Secretary, 
so that we may know what we are to vote on. 

The PRESIDENT. It will be read. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

"Resolved, That Article VIII. of the Constitution 
be amended by adding the following : 

" Provided, That theLectionary may be changed 
at any time by concurrent action of both Houses of 
the General Convention, but it shall require a 
majoiity of aU the Bishops entitled to seats in the 
House of Bishops and of all the Dioceses entitled to 
be represented in the House of Deputies to adopt 
such changes in the Lectio nary." 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I call for a vote 
by Dioceses and orders. 

The PRESIDENT. That call can be made after 
this matter is perfected, 

Mr, SMITH, of South Carolina. Very well. 

The question being put, there were on a division, 
ayes 49, noes 71. 

The PRESIDENT. The amendment is rejected. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I think the only 
proper motion is to non-concur with the House of 
Bishops. They propose one thing and we propose a 
different thing. That is constitutional. 

The question was put on the resolutions of the 
House of Bishops as amended, and they were con- 
curred in. 

Mr. SHEFPEY, of Virginia. Does not that re- 
quire a constitutional vote ? If we send back this 
proposition to the House of Bishops we are done 
with it. 

Rev. DR. DALZELL, of Louisiana. No, we act 
on it three years hence. 

Mr. SHEPFEY, of Virginia. So Car as this ses- 
sion is concerned, we are done with it, and it stands 
precisely as if it htid been an independent, new pro- 
position for the alteration of the Prayer Book. Now 
I call for the vote by Dioceses and Orders. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburg. I understand 
from the Secretary that it has not been the prac- 
tice of the House to vote by Orders on such a pro- 
position when it is introduced for the first time ; 
but on the question of the final agreement to it in 
the next General Convention the vote must be taken 
that way. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Let us proceed with the 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair holds that the vote 
need not necessarily be by Dioceses and Orders. 
The action of the House of Bishops is concurred in 
with the amendment moved by Rev. Dr. Beach. 

RUSSO-GREEK CHURCH. 

A message (No. 82) was received from the House 
of Bishops announcing that that House had adopt- 
ed, and asked the concurrence of the House of 
Deputies in, the resolutions accompanying the report 
of the Joint Committee on Communication with the 
Russo Greek Church, viz.: 

"Resolved (the Plouse of Deputies concurring). 
That this General Convention has great satisfaction 
in learning the courteous and brotherly tenor of the 
letters received from the Most Reverend Anthimus, 
Patriarch of Constantinople ; Sophronius, Patriarch 
of Alexandria; Hiero thins, Patriarch of Antioch; 
Isidore, President of the Holy Governmg Synod of 
Russia, and Theophilus, Metropolitan of Athens, 



President of the Holy Synod of Greece, in answer 
to the communication of the action of the last Gen- 
eral Convention, tlu-ough the Joint Committee, as 
now reported. ^ 

"Resolved, That we regard the establishment of 
full and free reciprocal i-elations of Chiistian bro- 
therhood between the great Eastera Churches and 
our own Communion as daily growing in import- 
ance and in hopefulness, and heartily pray the Great 
Head of the Church that His Spirit may so rule in 
all our Councils as to remove all hindrances which 
the pride, prejudice, or error of human frailty may 
present to hinder its consummation. 

' ' Resolved, That we desire the continuance and 
increased frequency of friendly correspondence 
with our brethren of the Holy Orthodox Eastern 
Church, in the assured confidence that on either 
part there will be the fullest recognition of all feel- 
ings and rights which might be imperilled by un- 
due or inconsiderate interference. 

" Resolved, That the Rev. Charles R. Hale, Sec- 
retary of the Russo-Greek Committee, has merited 
the cordial thanks of the Church for his elficient 
labors, and for his liberal devotion of his private 
means to the furthei'ance of the worlts of the Com- 
mittee. 

" Resolved, That as the work to be done in the 
future in the cause of intercommunion will con- 
sist in great part in correspondence and conferen- 
ces with the hierarchy of the various branches of 
the Eastern Church, which can be more fitly done 
by the Bishops of the Church, as occasion may 
arise, yom^ Joint Commission ask to be discharged 
from further consideration of this matter. " 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President, as 
the senior clerical member of what has been known 
as the Russo-Greek Committee, I beg to move that 
we concur with the resolutions which have just been 
sent down to us from the House of Bishops. I think 
they i-equire no sepaitite discussion ; but there are 
two matters which I should like the Con- 
vention to think about. One is the very 
great debt of gratitude that not only 
the Committee but our whole Church, and not only 
our whole Church, but really the Churches of God 
thi'oughout the woiid, owe to the Secretary of that 
Committee, the Rev. Charles R. Hale ; and I trust 
that the resolution in his favor will be adopted with 
a true senbiment of gratitude toward him. The 
work he has done has been simply prodigious, 
and I certainly feel that we are under very many 
obhgations to him. 

The only reason why our Committee has not been 
disbanded has been on account of the labor he has 
done. The other members of the Committee have 
been really able to do comparatively little or even 
nothing at all. The reason for our disba,nding has 
been because we felt that in delicate matters of 
intercommunion it would be better for the Bishops 
to have that whole subject wholly in theii' hands. I 
move, sir, that we concur in the resolutions which 
have been sent down. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I second the mo- 
tion. 

The resolutions were agreed to unanimously. 

GERMAN PRAYER-BOOK. 

Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. I ask 
consent to introduce the report of the Joint Com- 
mittee on the Translation of the Book of Common 
Prayer in German. It has never been my habit to 
do anything out of time, out of place, or out of or- 
der, but this report has been delayed by circum- 
stances very much. It will require no discussion, 
and is brief, but contains a matter thtit I think the 
members of the Convention ought to know. There- 
fore, I ask the Secretary to read it. 

The Secretary read the report as follows : 



377 



PRAYER-BOOK IN GERMAN LAKGUAGE. 

" The Joint Committee on the Translation of the 
Prayer-Book into the Grerman Language respectful- 
ly report, that during the past three yeai-s the work 
has been carefully and successfully prosecuted. The 
whole Prayer-Book and the appended officers, with 
the exception of the Institution Office, have been 
rendered into the G-erman language, and a consider- 
able portion of this translation has been printed in 
order to subject it to criticism and to the practical 
test of actual use in public services. By the liberali- 
ty of a member of Grace Church, New York, we have 
printed the offices for Moi-ning and Evening Pray- 
er, the Communion Office, etc. , as a book for Mission- j 
ary service, and it has been tried in several places i 
by the authority of the Ordinary. It is on sale, and | 
can be obtained at a very moderate price. Other ( 
offices have been printed in the Kirchenhlatt, \ 
and in that form have been revised by competent 
critics. I 

"The scholar to whom this very important and 
delicate tesk has been conunitted, the Rev. G. F. i 
Siegmund, is a native of G-ermany, educated in her i 
Universities, and remarkably qualified by nature : 
and by previous studies, and as well, we trust, by ' 
Divine Grace, for the work. He is a Deacon of the | 
Diocese of Western New York, a man of mature age, j 
having been a Lutheran pastor for many years be- I 
fore his admission to our communion. The general 
iniles under which he has labored with great enthu- 
siasm, and wholly without any other reward than 
his interest in the Church and his love of his Master, 
are as follows : 

" 1. Whatever in our Aughcan Prayer-Book is 
borrowed from the ancient liturgies should be trans- 
lated directly from the Greek and Latin, and not 
from the English, 

" 2. Whatever can be found in the Old German 
Agendas translated from the ancient liturgies in the 
liturgical language of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centui'ies should be appropriated. 

" 3. Not only in the lessons and psalms, and in the 
literal quotations from the Bible, but even in allu- 
sions to Scriptural expressions, the German Prayer- 
Book is to follow the text of Luther's German Bible, 
which is the only German translation of authority 
made from the fiebrew and Greek. 

"4. In translating the distinctly Anglican portions 
of the Prayer-Book, or such parts of ancient litur- 
gies as are not to be found in old German transla- 
tions, the woi-ds and idioms should be taken from 
the vocabulary of the German Bible and the Old 
German liturgies. 

"5. To secure the highest degree of vei'bal and idio- | 

matic accuracy, the woi-k of the translator should ' 

be submitted to living critics of high position in ; 

Germaily, and their suggestions should be very i 

carefully considered and respected. \ 

"It gives us pleasure to say that such German j 

critics as- Schoeberlein, Reusch, Haupt, and others j 

have been consulted. They have taken a generous | 

interest in the measure, and have borne the most ; 

gratifying testimony to the beauty and liturgic : 

spirit of the translation. They have taken pains to i 

indicate a few desirable alterations, and their ad- \ 

vice has been followed to a considerable extent. As i 

they did not sufficiently allow for the very strict | 

fidelity to the originals required by our Liturgic | 

Constitutions, we could not always accept their im- j 

provements. ; 

" We regret that our venerable Chairman had not ! 

been able to meet with us, but we rely on him for I 

valuable aid in our ultimate action and report. The i 

work, then, is not complete, but it is in a high de- : 



gree of forward progress, and your Committee re- 
spectfully beg to be continued. 

"W, H. ODENHEIMER, 

Bishop of New Jersey. 

A. CLEVELAND COXE, 

Bishop of Western New Yoi-k. 

W. D. WILSON, 

GEORGE LEEDS, 

HENRY DRISLER." 
Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. Mr. 
President, at this late period of the Convention, I 
certainly will not take up time by saying many 
words in regard to this translation. We have at 
last found, as we believe, the man who is capable of 
making a translation that the German population of 
our country will accept and that will be successful 
and useful. We have hopes and assurances from 
the gentlemen in Germany whose names are 
mentioned in the report, that this translation 
will be approved by the best writers there, and 
will be welcomed by them as a most valuable 
contribution in their work of reform in what 
is called the Old Catholic movement, and also in 
gathering around this nucleus those members of the 
various Protestant Churches who are the most 
eanaest and the most evangelical. I have examined 
a large share of the work that is submitted to us, 
and can assure you that we have now a man who is 
making a version of the Prayer-Book in German, 
which bears very much the same relation to the 
modern German of philosophy and current litera- 
ture, that the language of our Prayer-Book and of 
our Bible bears to the popular literature of the day. 
We thus obviate the great difficulty that has always 
hitherto stood in our way in regard to former trans- 
lations that have been made, that they were made 
by men of literature rather than liturgical learn- 
ing. This difficulty also we are assm-ed and believe 
is entirely removed. 

I move that the report be transmitted to the 
House of Bishops to be presented thei-e, and that 
the Committee be continued in order to complete 
their work. * 
The motion was agreed to. 

DELEGATION TO CANADIAN SYNOD. 

The SECRETARY. The next business on the 
Calendar is the resolution reported by the Commit- 
tee on the State of the Church nominating Rev. Dr, 
Craik, of Kentucky, Rev. Dr. Van Deusen, of Cen- 
tral New York, Rev. Dr. Schenck, of Long Island, 
and Governor Pish, of New York, Governor Steven- 
son, of Kentucky, and Judge Otis, of Illinois, as 
members on the part of this House of the Joint 
Delegation to the next Provincial Synod of Canada. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that that 
be approved and concurred in. 

The motion was agreed to. 

PUBLICATION OF JOURNAL. 

The SECRETARY. The next business on the 
Calender is : 

" Resolved, That there be appointed a Committee 
of Publication, composed of a member of the House 
of Bishops, and of one clerical and one lay member 
of the House of Deputies, together with the Secre- 
taries of both Houses, who shall take order as to the 
pubUcation of the two Journals, and adopt some 
means by which the expense and size of the Journal 
may be materially reduced. 

" Resolved, That any scheme which may be adopt- 
ed by this Committee shall include the furnishing a 
copy of the Constitution and Canons of this Church 
to every clergyman and candidate for orders in the 
same. " 

The resolutions were agreed to. 
The PRESIDENT. The resolutions will be amend- 
ed by inserting the clause " the House of Bishops 



378 



concurring," as they require the concurrence of the 
other House. 

POINTING OF THE PSALTER. 

The SECRETARY. The next business is the fol- 
lowing resolution, reported by the Committee on the 
Prayer-Book, touching the introduction of the colon 
in the Psalter : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the Standing Committee on the Standard 
Prayer-Book be authorized and instructed to intro- 
duce into all future editions of said Standai-d Pray- 
er-Book the colon or musical pause in each verse of 
the Psalter and Canticles, in accordance with the 
pointing of the Prayei--Book of the Church of Eng- 
land." 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. If that be 
adopted, I hope there will be a preamble of this 
sort, ' ' That this Church does not want the poor and 
illiterate to join in the responses." It will have just 
that effect. I happen to represent a constituency of 
three thousand working people. My friend on the 
right (Rev. Dr. Beach) who officiates to just such a 
class, will agree with me that every such point will 
be a bar to the poor joining in the i-esponses. I 
know there is great difficulty in having responses 
now, but it is mostly a clerical difficulty, because the 
clergy read so fast that the people cannot follow 
them. Put this in, and as sure as we live we shall 
have still greater difficulties, for we have little idea 
what trouble there is to those who are illiterate. I 
sincerely hope the resolution will not pass. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of I^ew Jersey. The question 
was asked when this was brought up whether it was 
not a mistake of the printer in leaving out the musi- 
cal note or colon. On page 189 of the Journal of 1871, 
it will be found that the Committee on the Prayer- 
Book, to whom was referred a resolution touching 
this matter, reported : 

"Resolved, That inasmuch as any departure fi-om 
the standard edition of Book of Common Prayer is 
now wholly miauthorized, no further legislation, in 
the judgment of the Committee, is required." 

It appears that the f ramers of Our Liturgy made 
the alteration f I'om the English Prayer-Book under- 
standingiy. The English Prayer-Book has the title 
of "The Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as 
sung or said in the Churches." The revisers of our 
Prayer-Book corrected the punctuation throughout, 
in order that the Psalter should be properly read. 
In Bishop White's Memoirs of the Church, a dis- 
tinction is made between the reading of Psalms and 
the singing of Psalms, The words stricken out, ' ' or 
sung," seem to be a virtual prohibition of 
Psalms being sung except those in metre. I hope, 
sir, we shall not allow this resolution to pass. 
It will break up the reading of the psalms, as they 
should be read in many of their churches, and I en- 
tirely agree with the Deputy from Pennsylvania 
that we had better not touch that inestimable heri- 
tage which we have, our blessed Prayer-Book. If 
we begin to alter in this way, we may as well go on 
and make several other alterations. I have no ob- 
jection to certain alterations, but I do protest 
against our breaking up a custom which has been 
made the custom from the time of the revision of 
our Liturgy down to this day ; and if we once let in 
this entering wedge, brethren, you hardly loiow 
where we shall land. Let us hold fast to this Litur- 
gy, and let us have our Prayer-Book as we have had 
it from the Revolution down. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I know of 
notliing more delightful, nothing more interesting 
than to hear the Clerical Deputy from JSTew Jersey 
speak in this way concerning the Prayer-Book. It 
puts me a little in mind of something which I have 
read in Sir Walter Scott's novel of the " Fortunes of 
Nigel. " The readers of that book will remember that 



j when the wickedness of Lord Dalgartio was found 
j out, that the Duke of Buckingham and Prince 
j Charles went to remonstrate with him on his wick- 
: edness ; and King James, after hearing about it, 
: came home, and said, " Oh, was it not delightful to 
hear baby Charles lecturing to Lord Dalgamo on the 
sin of dissimulation." [Laughter.] I wish to say 
that I entii-ely appreciate the admirable remarks of 
the gentleman from New Jersey; but let it be 
imderstood that the object of bringing in this colon 
is not to prevent people from reading the Psaltei'. 
I believe that where the Psalter cannot be sung 
: propei-ly, it had a great deal better be read. There 
i is nothing to me more unpleasant than a poor, 
i wretched attempt to sing the Psalter. But I do not 
I suppose that this Convention is prepared to say in 
I this day that the Psalter shall not be sung. It does 
j not mean to go back on King David, who certainly 
1 knew as much about the Psalms as my reverend 
brother from New Jersey [laughter], and who is 
j perpetually singing, "Oh, let us come and sing 
I unto the lioixl," " Oh, sing unto the Lord " this and 
j that. I am sure we caimot go back on King David. 
! All that this colon provides for is that if the Psal- 
' ter is simg it can be sung properly. For instance, 
I I have no gi-eat power to sing. I go into a church 
I where the Psalter is being sung, and I would like to 
I join in. I &id the colon, which tells me where the 
i division is, and so, in a halting way, pretty poorly, 
! but still I can join with them. The object of this 
I is simply to help when the Psalter is sung that it 
: may be sung better. It is not at all to make the 
j singing of the Psalter universal. Not for the world 
! would I make my reverend brother sing the Psal- 
I ter if he does not want to. [Laughter.] 
j Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. I shall not try, 
I for I cannot sing any better than he can. [Laugh- 
ter.] 

I Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. There is 
I one thing that I am sure my reverend brother from 
i New Jersey will believe in and will be thankful to 
j hear ; and that is that the colon is to be found in 
i that proposed book which has become the basis of 
i the Pray ei»- Book of the Reformed Episcopal Church. 
! [Laughter.] 

i Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. Mr. 
j President, the discussion of this subject illustrates 
I the importance of little things. This seems to be a 
i small matter, and yet around it revolves the great 
question of the musical service of the Church. The 
I objection has been raised by the clerical deputy 
I from New Jersey,' that it puts an obstruction to 
! the reading of the Psalter. 

j Now it is a fact that in almost every verse of the 
i Psalter in which we propose to place the colon, 
I there is already a semicolon in the very place where 
' we wish to have the colon. What is a semicolon ? 
; It is a colon with a caudal appendage added to it, 
; which is a greater abstraction than the colon itself. 
I What we desire is to cut off the appendage and les- 
j sen the obstruction. 

We are told this is an alteration of the Prayer- 
Book. In the preface to our American Prayer-Book 
those who revised it say, " It will also appear that 
tbis Church is far from intending to depart from the 
j Church of England in any essential point of doc- 
I trine, discipline, or woi^ship ; or further than local 
j circimastances require." 

1 The i-evisei-s of our American Prayer-Book did 
I not intend to deprive us of any privilege belonging 
i to us as our heritage from the English Church ; but 
i the circumstances of the time of the revision made 
it seem expedient that this point should be left out, 
! because they did not suppose that we should ever 
j require musical services. The musical service, at 
j that time, of the Church of England was very much 
I behindhand ; but within the last thirty years 
' it has been greatly revived ; and now, in every 



379 



chiu'ch, cathedral, and chapel of the Church of 
England you hear the Psalms of David chanted 
every Sunday. There is no exception to tliis rule, 
I believe. 1 "know, so far as my obsei'vation is con- 
cerned, that every small chapel which I entered, as 
well as the cathedrals, chant the Psalter of David, 
to the great edification of the common people and of 
all classes of the people. 

I say, sir, it is an indictment against the fathers of 
our American Church to say that they intended to 
rob us of any privileges belonging to us as our inherit- 
ance from the days of the Reformation. This does 
not hinder the retaining of the old orthodox meth- 
od. Any man may still have his quartet, his well- 
instructed choir in a high galleiy at the rear of the 
church, trilling and warbling to the rafters and 
beams above them, while the congregation below 
stand or sit listlessly idle, and unemployed, in the 
worship of Grod in the pews below. He may have 
that, if he chooses. I do not, if I can get something- 
better. 

But why shall those who wish to have that old 
method revived stand in the way and hinder us 
from having what we deem to be a better method, 
a more edifying method, a method more 
adapted to di-awing out the spiritual ele- 
ment in the hearts of the people ? This last 
method I have referred to was not the idea of the 
great Puritan poet — Puritan poet, I say to my 
friend from New Jersey — ^who said respecting the 
cathedral seiwice : 

" There let the pealing organ blow 

To the full-voiced choir below, 
In service high and anthems clear, 

That may in sweetness thi'ough mine ear 
Dissolve me into ecstasies. 

And bring all heaven before mine eyes." 

That was the idea of the great Puritan poet, and it 
does not differ much from the effect produced upon 
a Pm'itan preacher not far from this place in at- 
tending the cathedi-al service of the Church of 
England. What does he say of the effect produced 
upon his mind and his devotional feelings in 
attending the glorious cathedi^al service ^ He 
could hardly find language to express the power of 
that cathedral service to raise and elevate his spirit- 
ual affection ; but he tells us that it carried him up- 
ward almost to the confines of the celestial regions ; 
reiterating the same impression which the great 
Pm'itan poet expressed in such beautiful language. 
And I believe, sir, that any one who goes into 
the cathedrals of the Church of England, or 
generally into the parish churches of 
the Church of England, and sees the 
revival of the devotional element produced — I am 
sure I may say literally produced by the introduc- 
tion of the choral service by the restoration of the 
Psalter to its legitimate office in calling out devo- 
tional feelings and inspiring the sacred feelings of 
the heart and raising them up on the wings of 
language inspired for that very purpose— no one 
can go there in the midst of such congregations 
without being himself elevated and filled with the 
feeling that this is ti"ue worship. 

It does assimilate us to the heavenly choir ; for 
what is that but the musical expression of devotion 
before the Throne Eternal ? It is prolonging the 
voice of that heavenly choir which introduced the 
Grospel at the Saviour's birth. It is enabhng us to 
obey the precept of the Holy Apostle singing to 
himself, alternating antiphonally among ourselves 
in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, making 
offering of our hearts to the Lord. It is enabling 
us to fulfil the precept incorporated into every an- 
cient Liturgy, Sursum corda. 

I do not wish to dwell upon this subject. I be- 
lieve the hearts of the convention are disposed to go 



with me. But I have one word to say upon the pe- 
I cuniary objection which I believe is to be brought 
up against this measure. Objection is raised as to 
: the cost of it, that the Prayer-Book Society will be 
' put to some expense in altering the Prayer-Book to 
conform to this resolution. As I have already said, 
it is merely cutting off in most cases the small ap- 
pendage to the semicolon. That could not uivolve 
I a very great expense. Sometimes the plates 
' will have to be altered by an insertion of a colon. I 

■ have heard three thousand dollars mentioned ; then 
i again that has been raised to five thousand dollars. I 
; supposed it might be raised still higher; but I have 
' consulted with a pi-actical printer, and he tells me 
i that it will not nearly come up to the least of these 
j sums ; but whatever it may be, is that to be an ob- 
I stacle in the way of such an object as this? I say 
! that this light was lighted by the Great Illuminator 

for the benefit of the Church, and it cannot be put 
out by any such pecuniary extinguisher as is pro- 
posed to be put upon it. 

I hope that the matter will be sent down to the 
various Conventions in our Church, to be acted upon 
at the next General Convention, and I propose a 
i resolution to that effect. 

i Rev. Mr. MARPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
1 should like to ask this question : Owing to om- pimc- 
tuation varying, I believe, from the English Book, 
i will it not require other changes in the punctuation 
I of the psalms 11 not, I am in favor of it. 
I Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshii-e. No, 
I sir, it will not. 

I Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I sympathize 
j entirely with the eloquent remarks which have been 
i made ; but I would be very glad to see exactly the 
! connection of the question whether in the Prayer- 
Book, the standard edition, this colon was inserted 
by the compilers of our book. That Prayer-Book 
was made the standard after due consideration. 
Then again it was corrected, and in the Prayer- 
Book as made the standard and corrected the colon 
is not to be f omid, and has not been in the Prayer- 
Book of the American Church since that time. 
Therefore this would work necessarily a 
change of the Prayer-Book. It is the in- 
troduction into the " Prayer-Book of something 
! that is not there. The change, I think, is valuable, 
but I think it is very undesirable to have it done in 
any other way than the constitutional method. If 
it is now proposed as an amendment or change of 
j the Prayer-Book, under the Article of the Constitu- 
tion, to be acted upon by another Convention, very 
j well ; but I submit respectfully that this Conven- 
I tion has not within it the power to make 
the change in the Book, because the Article of 
; the Constitution shuts them out from it. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. That 
is what I want to do. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I say that the 
Prayer-Book is to be determined by the first stand- 
I ard Praj^er-Book of 1793, as that Prayer-Book was 
i amendecl by the coiTection of certain errata there- 
i in 'found. I have here a copy of it. That is the 
! standard Prayer-Book which decides what 
' the Prayer-Book was as it left the hands 
of the compilei-s, and remained the standard 
Prayer-Book of this Church to the end 
' of the century. Then the standard Book was the 
j Book of the Prayer-Book Society in Pennsylvania. 
Now the Standard Prayer-Book is as you have it is- 

■ sued by the New York Bible and Common Prayer- 
' Book Society, without the colon. I imderstand that 
j the colon is a musical sign. I think it a good thing 
j to have ; but I submit that you cannot have it until 
\ you alter the Prayer-Book, and that is to be done in 
i only one way. 

! Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. Allow me to 
: ask a question. Is it not proposed by the gentleman 



380 



who offered the resolution to have it sent to the Dio- 
ceses to have the Prayer-Book altered ? 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. That 
is what the proposition is. 

The SECRETARY. There is nothing of that sort 
in the resolution at the desk. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. I am 
going to offer a new resolution. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I suppose that 
if the gentleman intends that that resolution shall 
affect only the standard, it will be verj^ harmless, 
for I am told by the publisher of the standard 
Prayer-Book that it will probably take some fifteen 
or twenty years to work off the first edition. If the 
cutting off of the tails of commas would make good 
singers in the Church, or if it would accomplish that 
which I think is more to be desired and more neces- 
sary — the making of good readers — I do not Imow 
but that I should go for it notwithstanding the ex- 
pense, for I believe the gentleman had reference to 
me. 

As I understand it, however, all the Prayer-Books 
are to be altered by the insertion of these colons 
hereafter, or after the expiration of three years, if 
this passes. Now, it is to be considered by the Con- 
vention, I think, that there are thousands upon 
thousands of Prayer-Books in the hands of publish- 
ers of the Prayer-Book and the various societies 
which are getting out that book, and it is a very 
serious thing to these gentlemen and these societies 
to have such a resolution as this put in here. Al- 
ready, this Hyronal business has made them stand 
aghast ; and fears have been entertained that for- 
tunes would be lost by the action of this Conven- 
tion. I think that the money question is a very 
serious one. * ! 

Sir, the whole of this improvement which the ! 
gentleman speaks of in our services is already pro- ! 
vided for. Books have been prepared with the j 
pointed Psalter. The Psalter itself is published I 
separately with the musical points. Another thought I 
occui-s to me. By whose authority, under whose i 
management, and skill, and knowledge are these I 
pointings to be made ? 

As I understand it, there is great difference of | 
opinion among musical people as to where these I 
points should be ; and that is a question wliich j 
ought to be decided in some way or other. 
If we are to have these points, I do j 
not think we must go to work and simply cut ! 
off the tails of the commas wherever they happen i 
to be. I imagine that it will be found that these 
points will have to be put in in some different places 
from those which the Committee regard as the pro- 
per ones. 

For all these reasons, I think we had better let the 
Prayer-Book alone in this regard, and leave the 
Churches to sing antiphonally, and use the Psalter 
in the Choirs according to the methods which have i 
been already provided for them. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. It is i 
to keep the Prayer-Book in our own hands that this | 
resolution is proposed, and not to give it up to those j 
who have no authority to publish it with the pointed j 
Psalter. As to the place in which the colon is to be | 
put, it is definitely determined by the resolution, j 
that is the place where it has been in the English i 
Prayer-Book since the days of the Reformation. I 
That is good enough for us ; that is all we want. [ 
It does not make so much difference where the point i 
is, as that there is a point where we can come up. j 

Rev. Mr. McCULLOUGH, of South Carolina. I I 
venture to say a word which I would not presume i 
to say if it were not that since I have been in New ! 
York I have ascertained that copies of Bishop 
White's history of the early proceedings of the 
Church are not very common, and, therefore, the j 
fact may not be known to all the members of the 



House that Bishop White defends himself with 
his usual humility for his persistence in 
insisting upon selections of Psalms, and gives, 
as a reason for it, that he thought those 
Psalms selected and published in selection were bet- 
ter adapted to be sung, a method which he consid- 
ered the only proper method of using the Psalms of 
David in public worship ; and thence I infer that 
the omission of the musical point in the Psalter was 
rather accidental and from carelessness. I merely 
call the attention of the House to this fact that 
Bishop White was an advocate, and so he has re- 
corded himself, of the musical rendering of the 
Psalms. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop- 
tion of the resolution. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
should like to ask whether if the punctuation be so 
altered it will promote the intelligent reading of the 
Psalter, or whether it will interfere with it ? 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. It will 
not interfere with it. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN. of Wisconsin. It is simply 
the colon as it is f omid in the English Prayer-Book, 
and has been in the English Prayer-Book since the 
time of the Refonnation. 

The resolution was read as follows : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concm-ring), 
That the Standing Committee on the Standard 
Prayer-Book be authorized and instructed to intro- 
duce into all future editions of said standard 
Prayer Book the colon or musical pause in each 
verse of the Psalter and Canticles, in accordance 
with the pointing of the Prayer-Book of the Church 
of England." 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. That 
resolution was reported favorably by the Commit- 
tee on the Prayer-Book, with great unanimity, but 
the constitutional objection has been raised since, 
and I submit that the resolution which I offer now 
should be considered as an amendment to that, be- 
cause it was supposed at the time the thing could be 
done immediately. But we find it cannot be done 
immediately, and therefore I propose the other 
method of sending it down to the Dioceses and act- 
ing upon it at the next General Convention. That 
is an amendment to the report of the Committee. 

The PRESIDENT. The amendment will be read. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

"Resolved, That the resolution respecting the re- 
storation of the colon or musical pause in the Psal- 
ter from the English Prayer-Book, as reported by 
the Committee on the Prayer-Book, be approved, so 
as to send the same down to the several Diocesan 
Conventions for their consideration, to be acted on 
at the next Convention." 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
The resolution, to read properly, should be : 

" Resolved further. That the above proposition be 
submitted to the Dioceses as a proposed amendment 
to the Prayer-Book, according to the article of the 
Constitution in such case provided." 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move that 
the matter be recommitted to the Committee on 
the Prayer-Book. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. There is no use 
of recommitting it. We are unanimous upon it, and 
I think it can be fixed in five minutes. 

The PRESIDENT. The object of recommitment 
is merely to put it in form. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
move that we suspend this order until it can be 
put in form and go on with the next. 

Mr. SHEFFE Y, of Virginia. The Committee on 
the Prayer-Book reported a resolution that "the 
original resolution requires constitutional action." 
Then, if you desire that that shall stand as a propo- 



381 



sal to the Dioceses, all you have to do is to make it 
read thiis : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the following alteration of the Pra^'er-Book be 
proposed, to wit, that the Standing Committee, " etc. 

The PRESIDENT. That is right. Is the House 
ready for the question f 

Rev. Dr. GEER, of New York. I wish to ask if 
the Committee were mianimous in i-ecommending 
that resolution 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. There 
was no objection to it. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. The Committee 
were unanimous. 

Mi\ MASSIE, of Virginia. That is a mistake. 
The Committee were not unanimous. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. At 
the suggestion of the Clerical Deputy from Kansas 
[Mr. Bakewell], I wiU put in the Selection of Psalms. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I do respect- 
fully protest against this kind of loose legislation on 
important matters. There is a regular way of com- 
ing at this matter, and it is certainly going to be 
put through in a careless way. Here' we have the 
report of the Committee, and the Conmiittee itself 
seem to have had constitutional difficulties. Now 
we are going to add the Canticles, the. other part of 
the Psalms, and so on. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. It is 
already added. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. There is a reg- 
ular way, I think, of proposing these matters : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That it be proposed to the several Dioceses that it is 
at the next Convention proposed to consider and 
determine upon the following resolution.'' 

The PRESIDENT. I expect the resolution is sub- 
stantially to that effect as it has now been amended. 
It will be read. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concm-ring). 
That the following alteration in the Prayer-Book 
be proposed, to wit: That the Standing Committee 
on the Standard Prayer-Book be authorized and in- 
structed to introduce into all future editions of said 
Standard Praj^er-Book the colon or musical pause 
in each verse of the Psalter, Canticles, and Selection 
of Psalms, in accordance with the pointing of the 
Prayer-Book of the Church of England." 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
That will not do. That gives power to a standing 
Committee to make changes. That is an alteration 
of the Prayer-Book. 

The PRESIDENT. I suppose what you do by 
another you do by vourself . 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
wish to say but a single word. I stand alone, re- 
presenting the lay Delegation of my Diocese, and I 
am utterly opposed to thepasage of the resolution at 
all. In another meeting i heard great credit given to 
the pei'^ons who have taken the dissemination of the 
Prayer-Book in hand. A large number at great ex- 
pense have been disseminated, and great good has 
been accomplished. I am opposed to any alteration 
of the Book of Common Prayer. I am" opposed to 
making the Psalter principally designed for singing 
instead of reading, and I am "opposed to doing that 
which will destroy the value of tens of thousands and 
hundreds of thousands of volumes already printed. 

There are numerous objections to this in my 
mind. It seems to me that we are entering upon 
the question of altering the standard Book of Com- 
mon Prayer, which has been sacredly preserved as 
the standard. Gentlemen here would not even com- 
mit the power to this Convention to make selec- 
tions from Scriptm-e, but they do not hesitate at all 
to alter the standard Book of Common Prayer. If 



3-0U alter it in a comma, you may alter the sense 
vei\y materially, 
i Nobodj^ knows, without a detailed examination, 
! what would be the effect of putting a colon in the 
i Psalter in reading. I know, in listening to the sing- 
ing of anything, the division made is often such as 
utterly to destroy the sense : and the demands of 
the musical ail, with which I am not familiar, le- 
quire that changes in the sense should be made, 
thus unfitting the matter for reading. But my 
general principle is that I am opposed to any alter- 
ation of the standard Book of Common Prayer 
aS|»now preserved in the archives of this Church 
^^'ithout the greatest object; and the object of this 
i is to make the Psalter to be sung instead of read. A 
; Rubric in the beginning of the Pra^'er-Book saj'S 
i the Psalter shall be read. I do not deny the right 
of people to sing the Psalter if thej^ think "fit to do so. 
But we have Rubrics, which authorize many partes of 
1 the Prayer-Book to be either said or sung 
a distinction which is maintained throughout, and 
! you will here sanction the practice in the Church by 
the vote of this Convention that ■'said " and "sung" 
are indiscriminate terms, and whether the Rubric 
' says "the following shall be said or sung " or merely 
says it "shall be said" makes no difference. Per- 
haps that has passed into a law already, but I am 
not in favor of voting for it in this way. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. In ninety-nine par- 
ishes out of a hundred, I venture to say, the Psalter 
is read and not sung. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY. of Connecticut. I 
should like the < olon, as it is in the English Prayer- 
Book, but I was opposed to this resolution in Com- 
mittee, and did not vote for it. A majority of the 
Committee, however, were in favor of presenting it 
here, and I have said nothing against it, and did 
not intend to sa}" anything against it : but my bro- 
ther from Long Island (Rev. Dr. Hall) has intimated 
that the constitutional question was not thought of 
' by the Committee. It was thought of and con- 
: sidered. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Lcrg Tflrrd. I beg pardon ; 

I meaut here on the floor of il:e Convention. 
Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. I should 

be willing to see the resolution adopted, but I do 
; not think, at the present stage of the session, this 
i House ought to go into such an important matter as 
: this ; for it is an important matter. It will disturb 

the feelings of a great many pei-sons in our Church, 

and it will be better to let it go over for the present. 
I Three years ago this same resolution was intro- 
I duced, and referred to the Committee on Prayer- 
I Book, and that Committee reported against it. Pre- 
1 cisely the same resolution was introduced this year, 
I and a majority of the Committee were in favor of 
! it. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshii'e. I beg 
I pardon; this resolution was not proposed at the 
' last Convention. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. You 
will find a record of it in the Journal of the last 
Convention. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. Not 
I this resolution, but another resolution. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. Sub- 
stantially the same thing. 

Rev. Dr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire. That 
was a resolution to point the Psalter by the cadence, 
and all the musical points. This resolution only pro- 
poses one point, the colon. 

Rev, Dr. BEARDSLY, of Connecticut. It is sub- 
i stantially the same thing. I have no objection to it 
i pei-sonaUy, but I do not think that it would be well 
for the House to adopt it at present. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I sim- 
ply wish to call attention to the fact that this ac- 
tion is not final. It is simply to propose this change 



382 



to the Dioceses, and then it comes up to us three j 
yeai's hence, when it may be thoroughly discussed. 
And in reply to the objection of the gentleman ! 
from Western New York, and the objection of 
others, I wish to read this Rubric : | 

" Then shall be said or sung one of the Selections, j 
or some other portion of the Psalms, at the discre- \ 
tion of the minister." ! 

The Church has always conceded the princii^le ' 
that the Psalter and the Selection of Psalms, or any ; 
Psalms, may be sung. I have read a Rubric in the | 
Thanksgiving Office. j 

Rev. Mr. GTRAULT, of Louisiana. I objecfc to ! 
any such argument as is presented by the gentle- ! 
man from New Jersey, that the resolution will not j 
be finally acted upon now, but go to the next j 
Convention, This is a bad principle. If it 1 
does go down from this Convention to the next, j 
it goes down with our consent and with j 
our approbation ; and I hold that the approbation 
of one General Convention goes very far towards \ 
making up the minds of the next. I am opposed to j 
it ; and I am opposed, further, to this resolution for | 
several reasons, but one principal reason mentioned 
by the Deputy on my left (Mr. King), that out of 
the whole congregations in this land I suppose 
ninety -nine one-lmndredths never sing the Psalter. 
There are some churches where it may be veiy well 
to sing the Psalter, where it is well done, but there 
are thousands of churches in the United States 
where the Psalter is not sung, and it will be many 
years to come before all our churches will be able i 
to sing it. I am opposed to it, because it interferes i 
with reading the Psalter. You take a comma and 
make a colon of it ; you cui-tail it. That is the 
truth ; it is curtailing the Prayer-Book, and I ob- 
ject to it. [Laughter.] You will make a colon 
where a comma is, and no one will read it properly. , 
or if you put the colon where a semicolon is, you j 
cannot read it properly. 

I move that not only this substitute but the whole 
matter be laid on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to ; \ 
there being on a division ayes 74, noes 48. i 

COMMITTEE ON GENERAL, THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

A message (No. 83) from the House of Bishops in- 
formed the House of Deputies that it had appointed | 
as member of the Joint Commission on the General : 
Theological Seminary, called for in Message No. 68 ; 
from the House of Deputies, the Bishop of North i 
Carolina and the Bishop of Pittsburgh. i 

COMMITTEE ON ECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS. ' 

A message ( No. 84 ) from the House of Bishops ■ 
informed the House of Deputies that it concurred | 
in Message No. 67 from the House of Deputies, ap- j 
pointing an additional member of the Joint Com- I 
mittee on Ecclesiastical Relation and Religious | 
Reform, and that it had appointed as said additional : 
member the Bishop of Central New York, in 
whose appointment it asked the concurrence of the 
House of Deputies. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I move that 
we concur. 

The motion was agreed to. 

STANDARD PRAYER-BOOK. 

A message (No. 85) from the House of Bishops in- 
formed the House of Deputies that it concurred in 
Message No. 70 from the House of Deputies, appoint- 
ing the Rev. W. T. Webbe on Joint Committee on 
Stereotype Plate of Standard Prayer-Book. 

FORCE OF JOINT RESOLUTIONS. 

A message (No. 86) from the House of Bishops in- 
formed the House of Deputies that it has appointed 
as members of the Joint Committee on the Force of 
Joint Resolutions (see Message 75 of House of Bish- 



ops), on its part The Bishop of Maryland, the 
Bishop of Rhode Island, the Bishop of Maine. 

COMMISSION ON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

A message (No. 87) from the House of Bishops in- 
formed the House of Deputies that it had appointed 
on its part as members of the Joint Commission to 
consider and report as to legislation necessary to 
incrcHsed efiiciency in the government of the Gen- 
eral Theological Seminary, the Bishop of North 
Carolina and the Bishop of Pittsburgh. 

TIME OF FINAL ADJOURNMENT. 

A message (No. 88) from the House of Bishops in- 
formed the House of Delegates that it did not con- 
cur hi message No. 83 from the House of Deputies as 
to the time of adjournment of the General Conven- 
tion, and asked for a Committeee of Conference, 
and informed the House of Deputies that it has ap- 
pointed on such Committee on its own part, the 
Bishop of Western New York, the Bishop of Mis- 
souri, and the Assistant Bishop of Maryland. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Is our Committee 
on Closing Exercises charged with that, or will it 
require another committee ? 

The PRESIDENT. I think that Committee had 
better be appointed on the subject of this message 
now. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
move that the message be concurred in, and that 
the Committee on Closing Exercises be appointed 
the Committee of Conference on the part of this 
House. 

The motion was agreed to. 

TRUSTEES OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

A message (No. 89) from the House of Bishops in- 
formed the House of Deputies that it concurred in 
Message No. 86 from the House of Deputies (con- 
firming the persons nominated as Trustees of the 
General Theological Seminary). 

PROOF-SHEETS OF STANDARD BIBLE. 

A message (No. 90) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced that that House did not concur in Message 
No. 87 from the House of Deputies (continuing the 
Joint Committee to Examine Proof-Sheets of Pro- 
t posed Standard Bible) for the reason that there is no 
; duty of the kind now demanding attention. 

CANON OF CHURCH MUSIC. 

: A message (No. 91) from the House of Bishops, 
' announced the adoption by that House of the f ol- 
1 lowing resolution : 

; "Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
i That the proposed Canon of Church Music, as 
I amended by the House of Deputies, be adopted in 
I the following form: 

I "1. The selections of the psalms in metre and 
' hymns which are set forth by authority, and an- 
: thems in the words of Holy Scripture, are allowed 
to be sung in all congregations of this Church, be- 
! fore and aftei- Morning and Evening Prayers, and 
I also before and after sermons, at the discretion of 
1 the minister, whose duty it shall be, by standing di- 
1 rections, or from time to time, to appoint such author- 
1 ized psalms, hymns, or anthems, as are to be sung. 
! "3. It shall be the duty of every minister of this 
Church with such assistance as he may see fit to em- 
ploy from persons skilled in music, to give orders 
\ concerning the tunes to be sung at any time in his 
i Church, and especially it shall be his duty to sup- 
i press all light and unseemly music, and all inde- 
I cency and irreverence in the performance, by which 
I vain and ungodly persons profane His service of 
j the sanctuary." 

: Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. In this 
j connection I beg to present the report of the Com- 
I mittee of Conference on this subject, which pre- 



sents the Canon in precisely the language that 
it has come from the House of Bishops. After the 
report was agreed on it was thought that something 
had been done last Saturday by this 
House that would interfeie with the Canon 
in the way in whieli it was decided on ; 
but tlie Committee of Conference after considera- 
tion think that their report need not be changed ; 
that all the matters which were given to them as a 
Joint Committee of Conference are completely 
stated and fully treated upon in the report. But 
it appears to them that in order to reconcile this re- 
port with foi-mer proceedings of the House, and 
also in order to complete the Hymnal so that every- 
thing about it will be just as it shovdd be, some reso- 
lution of this kind should be passed : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the Canon on Church Music be printed in all 
authorized editions of the revised Hymnal, upon the 
fourth page of the same, in place of the matter now 
upon that page, and that this resolution take the 
place of the third, passed by the House of 
Bishops, as in Message No. 73 to this House, and 
concurred in by this House on the twenty-second 
day of its session." 

That resolution was that the matter which is now 
upon the fourth page of the revised Hymnal be 
printed there, and have the authority of a Canon. 
Now a Canon has actually been adopted which, in 
some respects, varies from that matter which is 
there printed. Hence it is proposed that that Canon 
be printed in the place of the matter wliich we have 
ah'eady authorized to be printed there, and we re- 
peal, in substance, the resolution which was passed 
on last Saturday. If, then, the House will take 
up the Canon, either as concurring with the House 
of Bishops or else as it is presented by the Com- 
mittee of Conference and will pass it, this resolu- 
tion following after that Canon will be sent to the 
House of Bishops, and when concurred in by them 
will complete this vexed matter. 

I move, fii-st, that we concur in the message from 
the House of Bishops. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. As I 
understand the message f i-om the House of Bishops, 
it does not state, in accordance with the require- 
ments of Canon 2 of Title 4, where this proposed 
Canon shall come in the Digest. It is expressly re- 
quii'ed by Canon 2 of Title 4 that it shall be named 
that the Canon is adopted as Canon so-and-so of 
Title so-and-so. That omission ought to be corrected 
before we pass it. Perhaps the Committee on Can- 
ons can straighten that out now. Where shall it 
come in the Digest ? 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on concur- 
ling in the message just read with regard to the 
music of the Church. 

Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. I hope this 
proposition will pass. Some of us law and oi-der 
men had doubt as to singing before ; but if we have 
the authority of the Church, all will be well. Some 
one has said, " Let me make the songs of a nation, 
and I care not who may make its laws. " I do re- 
joice that in matters of Ritual, so far as music is 
cancerned, there has been so great an advance with- 
in the last few years. I do most heartily thank the 
Committee. 

The message was concurred in. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Now I 
move this resolution: 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the Canon on Church Music " — 

And then mention the message in which it oc- 
curs 

— "be printed in aU authorized editions of the revised 
Hymnal, upon the fourth page of the same, in place 
of the matter now upon that page ; and that this 
resolution take the place of the third passed by the 



House of Bishops, as in Message No. 73 to this 
House, and concurred in by this House on the 
twent}^ -second day of this session." 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption 
of the resolution just read. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

THE REVISED HYMNAL. 

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. A. committee was ap- 
pointed on Saturday, under a resolution offered by 
the Rev. Dr. Hall, of Long Island, in respect to the 
correction of typographical, clerical, and other mis- 
takes in the revised Hymnal, and they have prepared 
and unanimously agreed to the report which 1 hold 
in my hand. I will state, before reading the report, 
that ' ' I have myself, in connection with a 
member of the Committee and one of the Trustees 
charged with the duty of publishing the Hymnal, 
very carefully examined the subject, and we are 
satisfied that the emendations oi* corrections speci- 
fied in this report are all that will be required, so 
that the two Houses will know that the Hymnal as 
revised and printed Avith these modifications will be 
the Hymnal to be used. I submit, therefore, the 
following report : 

" The Special Committee to whom was referred 
the resolution offered by the Rev. Dr. Hall, in re- 
spect to certain typographical, clerical, and other 
mistakes found to exist in the revised Hymnal, 
and the correction thereof, in order that the editions 
to be published may, as far as practicable, be accu- 
rate, have carefully considered the subject, and 
recommend the adoption of the following resolu- 
tion : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the Trustees authorized by a former joint reso- 
lution of the two Houses of the General Convention 
to superintend the revision and publication of the 
i-e vised Hymnal, with power to make the typo- 
graphical and other changes necessary to conform 
it to the report of the Committee on the Hymnal, 
be instructed in the discharge of their duties : 

"1. To make all necessary corrections of clerical 
! or typographical errors, or mistakes in punctuation 
! in the text of the Hymnal, as revised and author- 
I ized by the General Convention at its present ses- 
; sion : 

I "2. To substitute for the word ' Jesu ' the word 
I ' Jesus ' wherever it occurs. 

i "3. To make the following corrections, in the 
; printed slip, distributed to the Convention, and 
I headed ' Changes in the Hymnal,' and reported by 
I the Joint Committee : 

"a. Hymn 315 to be printed as in the ' Hymnal ' 
I instead of as in ' Prayer-Book. ' 

"6. Hymn 378 to remain as in the 'Revised 
Hymnal, ' being Hymn No. 63 of Prayer-Book. 

"c. Hymn 393, substitute for this the Hymnal 
version. At the end of the Hymn add the ' Prayer- 
I Book ' version as Hymn 532. 

" 4. To make the following alterations, so that as 
! to the Hymns named the revised Hymnal may 
: correspond with the standard edition of the 
; Hymnal : 

; "a. Hymn 219, verse 3, line 4, substitute ' might 
; well ' for ' would their. ' 

I "6. Hymn 405, verse 2, line 1, substitute 'know 

\ that the Lord ' for ' the Lord ye know. ' 

I "c. Hymn 489, verse 3, line" 3, substitute 'far- 
seeing' for ' foreseeing.' 

I "c?. Hymn 496, insert fourth verse from Bicker- 
steth, and omit fifth verse, as now printed. 

I " e. Hymn 502, verse 2, line 4, substitute the word 

j ' sovereign ' for the word ' gracious.' 

I "5. To make the corrections as proposed by the 

j Hymnal Committee, and as set forth in the printed 
sheet, submitted to the Convention and headed 

. 'corrections.' 



384 



^'6. To allow no hymn to be added to those now 
in the revised Hymnal, and none to be omitted 
therefrom but such as are now authorized by this 
resolution. 

(Signed) " CHARLES H. HALL, 

NOAH HUNT SCHENCK, 
GEORGE JAR VIS GEER, 
HUGH W. SHEFFEY, 
HENRY E. PIERREPONT, 
" Committee." 

I ask that the House adopt the resolution, in order 
that it may be sent to the House of Bishops. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. These are all the 
changes proposed. I should like to say one single 
word. Three years ago, in looking at this Hymnal 
hastily, I offered a resolution asking the Committee 
on the Hymnal to consider the propriety of using a 
larger number of hynms for children. That was upon 
hasty examination ; but having during the last 
year united in preparing a Hymnal for a public in- 
stitution, with which I was connected, for children 
from six to eight years of age, I find that they have 
taken one hmidi'ed hymns from this Hymnal, show- 
ing that there is ample provision for our Sunday- 
schools, and therefore the Committee, I feel, are 
perfectly right in not increasing the number. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the resolu- 
tion reported by the Special Committee. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

TRIALS OF CLERGYMEN. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report 
the next business on the Calendar. 

The SECRETARY. The following resolution, 
reported by the Committee on Canons : 

Resolved [the House of Bishops concurring). That 
Section 1, of Canon 3, of Title n.,of the Digest be 
amended so as to read as follows : 

"Sec. 1. If a clergyman of this Church, be- 
longing to any Diocese or missionary district, shall 
have conducted himself in any other Diocese or 
missionary district in such a way as to be liable 
to presentment under the provision of Canon 2 of 
Title II., the ecclesiastical authority thereof shall 
give notice of the same to the ecclesiastical 
authority where he is canonicaUy resident, ex- 
hibiting, with the information given, reasonalble 
ground for presuming its correctness. 

" If the ecclesiastical authority, when thus notified, 
shall omit, for the space of three months, to proceed 
against the oflcending clergyman, he shall request 
the ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese or mis- 
sionary district in which the offence or offences are 
imputed to have been committed, to proceed against 
him. It shall be within the power of the ecclesias- 
tical authority bf the Diocese or missionary district 
witliin which the offence or offences are alleged to 
have been committed to institute proceedings ac- 
cording to the mode provided by the Convention 
thereof, and the decision given shall be conclu- 
sive." 

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the adop- 
tion of the Canon. 
The Canon was adopted. 

SEPARATION OF SERVICES. 

The SECRETARY. The next business on the 
Calendar is the report of the Committee on Canons 
respecting a Commission on the Revision of Ru- 
brics, to which are appended two resolutions. The 
first resolution is as follows : 

"1. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That it is the sense of this Convention that nothing 
in the present Order of Common Prayer prohibits 
the separation, when desirable, of the Morning 
Prayer, the Litany, and the Order for the Adminis- 
tration of the Lord's Supper, into distinct services, 
which may be used independently of each other, 



I and either of them without the others. Provided, 
I that, when used together, they be used in the same 
I order as that in which they have commonly been. 
; used and in which they stand in the Book of Com- 
i mon Prayer." 

: The PRESIDENT. In order to simphfy the ques- 
j tion it would be better for the House to pass upon 
I the first resolution at once, which has not been con- 
; sidered as debatable at all, leaving the second reso- 
: lution for discussion. 
I The first resolution was agreed to. 

i RUBRICAL REVISION. 

i The Secretary read the second resolution, as fol- 
I lows : 

' ' 2. Resolved (the House of Bishops con- 
: curring). That a Joint Commission, consisting of 
: seven Bishops, seven Presbyters, and seven Laymen, 
j be appointed (the Presbyters and Laymen to be 
; chosen by ballot in the House of Deputies) to take 
i into consideration the whole subject of Rubrical 
\ revision, among other things providing shortened 
: and more varied services and a new Lectionary, 
I and making such other suggestions as may seem 
i judicious with respect to the services and offices of 
} the Church, and to report to the next General Con- 
I vention." 

The PRESIDENT. The question is now upon the 
i second resolution, and Mr. Meigs, of New Jersey, is 
i entitled to the floor, which he obtained when the 
; resolution was last undei" discussion. 
: Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I have very few 
1 words to say on this resolution ; but it does seem to 
I me that it contains a power without any quahfica- 
I tion whatever. It involves, it seems to' me, no less 
• tJian giving this commission the power to consider 
all the Rubrics in the Prayer-Book, and consequently 
: those which relate to doctrine. We have already con- 
j sidered one proposition in reference to "a Rubric, 
I whether it changed doctrine or not, and we have 
i had a very emphatic vote on that question. It 
seems to me that this resolution authorizes this com- 
i mission to take into consideration the whole subject 
; of Rubrical revision. If it does not authorize the 
; commission to report a Rubric affecting doctrine, 
I I do not know any language that would convey the 
I idea. Now, sir, when I take up the preface to the 
Prayer-Book, I read : 

" It is a most invaluable part of that blessed 
I hberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, that in 
I his worship, different forms and usages may with- 
i out offence be allowed, provided the substance of 
I the faith be kept entire, and that, in every church, 
I what cannot be clearly determined to belong to 
I doctrine must be referred to discipline ; and there- 
I fore, by common consent and authority, may be 
; altered" — 

That is to say, the discipline may be altered, but 
1 not the doctrine. 

i — "ma J" be altered, abridged, enlarged, amended, 
i or otherwise disposed of, as may seem most conve- 
. nient for the edification of the people, ' according to 
I the various exigencies of times and occasions.' " 
As I have said, it would authorize this Committee 
to report in favor of a new Prayer-Book. I am en- 
tirely unwilling that any Committee shall have power 
as unlimited as this might be ; which might come 
; before the next Convention and report, providing a 
I new and different Prayer-Book. It is altogether too 
j serious a question to be reposed in charge of a com- 
! mittee, and I am totally opposed to adopting such a 
1 proposition, as they can come before the next Con- 
j vention with the authority that always goes with 
I the report of a committee. 

i The Lay Deputy from South Carolina [Mr. 
i McCra,dy] has, as I esteem it, laid down the proper 
I principle upon which changes in the Rubrics affecfc- 
i ing the doctrines should be made, and it is: that 



385 



when a change in a Rubric is proposed, it should I 
come in only in the manner in vvliich this proposed | 
Rubric in the office of the Sacrament of Baptism was | 
offei-ed, and it should have the full and distinct con- 
sideration of this whole body. Our own Committee 
on Canons decUned to express an opinion 
upon it, because they saw that it was 
too important a question for them to prejudge by a 
recommendation. That I esteem to be a correct 
principle, and I am totally opposed to reposing in 
any committee or any commission unlimited power 
to deal with these Rubrics. So far as it has been 
settled here that the offices and that the Prayer- | 
Book are subject to revision, it is according to the 
language of the preface of the Prayer-Book, but not 
in reference to doctrine except under very solemn 
circumstances. 

So, sir, I do not know that I shall occupy the 
time of the Convention any longer, except merely 
to state that I hope they wlU. pause before they take 
a step which will result in such a radical and exten- | 
sive change of our Book as would be possible imder 
this resolution. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, 
viewing things from my standpoint, I do not think 
there has been one proposition made by this House 
so important as this. I know there is no proposition 
that will be so likely to give ease to the consciences 
of ministers and people as this will. I 
do beheve its passage is vital. One min- 
ister has been deposed for violating 
a Rubric, the essential part of which our own 
Church declares he did not violate. He did all that 
our Church says is essential, and — 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I call the gen- 
tleman to order. He has no right to make such 
statements as that. 

The PRESIDENT. The words must be taken 
down that are irregular or improper. 

Mr. WELSH, of Peimsylvania. I will read from 
the Rubric in the Prayer-Book precisely what I 
mean. The Rubric for the private baptism of child- 
ren, says : "But if they who bring the infant to 
the Church do make such uncertain answers to the 
minister's questions as that it cannot appear that the 
child was baptized with water, in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gl-host 
(which are essential parts of baptism)," etc. 

The point I want to make is this : We need a com- 
mission to determine the value or binding force 
of Rubrics. If the violation of a Rubric in which 
the essential parts are performed renders a man 
liable to be deposed, surely in the violation of other 
Rubrics where the essential part is not performed 
the same judgment and condemnation ought to fol- 
low. 

If I understand aright the principles of our thor- 
oughly Protestant Church, it has done all that leg- 
islation can do to prevent priest-craft. I can con- 
ceive of no additional safeguard needed to prevent 
its growth, yet some of these safeguards are so con- 
stantly disregarded that, if our clergy are brought 
to trial for breaking down these safeguards, this 
Church would not have a corporal's guard to-mor- 
row. I hold that the Rubric indicating the time 
when infant baptism should be performed is of sol- 
emn import, and that the clergy have no discretion 
as to when it shall ordinarily be performed, ex- 
cept in the cases indicated in this Rubric : 

" When there are childi-en to be baptized, the 
parents or sponsors shall give knowledge thereof, 
before the beginning of Morning Prayer, to the 
Minister. And then the godfathers and godmothers, 
and the people with the children, must be ready at 
the font, either immediately after the last lesson at 
Morning Prayer, or else immediately after the last 
lesson at Evening Prayer, as the minister by his dis- 
cretion shall appoint." 



This Rubric was evidently prepared with great 
care, that Baptism might never be viewed as one of 
the most solemn acts of our Church ; that we might 
never think that by the power of the priesthood 
solely a child can be spiritually regenerated and 
grafted into the family of Christ. The whole con- 
gregation is to be present to unite in that solemn 
act. If I imderstand the spirit of the Church, it asks 
its people to come and join with the minister in ear- 
nest prayer that Cod's Spirit may descend in all its 
fulness on that little one received by the minister 
in the name of Christ. 

The proposed Commission wiU be most important 
to determine the meaning and binding force of 
Rubrics; for usages are growing up that maj, if un- 
checked, weaken the foundations of the Church 
quite as much as what are called mediaeval usages. 
1 think we can all see how judicious men examining 
these Rubrics intelligently and thoroughly can 
make a report to the next Convention that will assist 
the Church to return to its primitive usages. It will 
surely show that in both of the sacraments restric- 
tions'^are put upon the Presbyters, compelling them 
to have a certain niunber of praying people who by 
theii" "amen" will show that other prayers thaji 
those of an officiating priest have gone up to God 
and procured added power to the sacraments. 

I was not among those who cared to have the pro- 
position of the Committee on Canons passed, allow- 
ing alternate phrases, for I believe there is a higher 
law and a Rubric of common sense. I never yet 
have seen the minister who, if a child was to be 
baptised, far out on our frontier, and he had no 
Prayer-Book, would say, to a layman, "you must bap- 
tize that child, for I have no Prayer-Book. I doubt if 
we could find a man who would not show his 
manhood in such a case and show that the power of 
the Holy Ghost that made him a minister of the 
Lord Jesus Christ lifted him above all Rubrical 
hindrances. Surely there is a discretion lodged 
with every minister of Chiist, and I do not think 
that in this Diocese, or in that with which I am con- 
nected, there ever wiU be a time when any 
minister of Christ who is reaUy in earnest, 
and who is striving to do his duty 
to God and to man, will be tried for 
conscientiously making variations in the declara- 
tion of the effect of Baptism when he has complied 
with the essentials ordained by Christ. If Zachari- 
as and Elizabeth had brought their babe to a minis- 
ter of this Church for Christian baptism, would 
they have been refused because they desired Chris- 
tian baptism only ? They would undoubtedly have 
said, before that child was conceived prayer was 
offered that it might be a sancCified conception. 
Before the birth there was prayer, so that it came 
forth filled with the Holy Ghost. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise to a point 
of order. My point of order is that this House has 
considered and disposed of the question of the 
change of Rubrics in the Office of Holy Baptism. 
That, -therefore, is no longer under discussion, and 
what is now under discussion is exclusive of that 
subject. 

The PRESIDENT. A general revision is under 
discussion, and the gentleman will finish his speech 
by my watch before we can dispose of the point of 
order. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Thus interrupted, 
I think a speaker ought to have five minutes for 
every interruption. 

The PRESIDENT. Go on, sir. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I wiU close by 
saying that this Commission, if appointed, will 
cause great easement of the conscience of many de- 
voted ministers in this Church. Those of you who 
will be here three years hence will thank God that 



386 



the Committee on Canons brought in the proposed 
resolution. 

Mr, MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
rise simply to submit a motion that, unless other- 
wise ordered by the House, every speaker shall limit 
his remarks to five minutes. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. Within five min- 
utes I cannot allude to any point tha,t has been 
made, and so well made, by the Lay Deputy from 
New Jersey [Mr. Mei^s] as to the largeness of 
this Commission. I will pass on to ask the Conven- 
tion to perceive the difncult position in which it will 
put itself by passing this resolution. 

On Saturday it passed a so-called Canon on Ritual. 
That Canon enacted that, if any Bishop have reason 
to believe, or if complaint be made, that ceremo- 
nies symbolizing erroneous or doubtful doctrines 
have been introduced, he shall act in a certain way. 
Do not the rites and ceremonies of the Church begin 
with its Rubrics as corrected by its articles ? And 
if you say to-day that there is such uncertainty up- 
on Rubrics as requires a commission, I ask how any 
Presbyter is to be presented under that Canon of 
Ritual? Does it not stultify the very position in wliich 
tlie Convention has put itself ? Will not any Pres- 
byter who is presented say, "The General Conven- 
tion has passed a resolution that the whole Rubrics 
shall be revised ; that there is no certain law in the 
Rubrics;" and how can you convict him under Ru- 
brics which are uncertain, where there is no law ? 
Gentlemen, is not that a perfect denial of your 
Canon on Ritual ? And when so much pains have 
been taken, so much effort and energy expended, in 
passing that Canon to which we look for peace, are 
you not throwing it away, utterly undoing the work 
you have done ? 

It may be said that this Commission is not to 
make law, it is only to report. I stand upon the 
ground that anything that this Convention does is 
not merelythat perfunctionary act of sending a thing 
down to ask other people's minds; it is a stamping 
upon whatever we do our opinion that the thing is 
so-and-so. I ask whether, after these long years 
passed in the use of this Prayer-Book, this Conven- 
tion is at liberty to say, "We do not know what 
the law is ; we must go to somebody to tell us what 
the law is " ? 

Again, it is too late at this moment, in another 
point of view, to ask us to do this thing. I do not 
know whom to vote for. Four ignorant laymen, 
who come from some distant part of the country, 
must have time to consider wiiom to vote for. We 
want to know who are the men in whom so tremen- 
dous a trust can be imposed. To ask us now, at the 
close of the session, to go into a ballot for a com- 
mission to be invested with such immense powers 
is unfair. It is not giving us an opportunity to put 
ourselves in possession of such information as will 
allow a proper judgment. 

Again, I insist — and it can not be too much insisted 
upon — that these Rubrics contain doctrine, or if not 
doctrine, at least they are authorized teachings. 
Look, for instance, at the Rubric in the Offertory. 
It is only recently that this great Church has awoke 
to the true nature of that Offertory. I remember 
when I was a boy, a few old men stood at the door 
to receive collections on no matter how 
important occasions. Instead of the solemn 
sacred nature of that offering, as we now 
understand it, that was the manner in which it was 
performed. We have learned better. So these 
Rubrics have a power of executing, and enforcing, 
and explaining themselves, and they may not do it 
to-day or in a short time ; it takes a long time for 
us to know the value of some of them ; but now you 
propose to unsettle everything— to throw all we 
have to the winds— and teU us that this is a Church 



that has no law. Why I can hardly find words to 
express my astonishment. [Here the hammer feU.] 
Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I do not consider this a question of love or 
loyalty to the Church. Persons of all shades of 
opinion may entertain different views upon this 
I subject. Now, sir, I thank 'God for one for the 
i Catholic Liturgy that has come down to us from the 
j ancient times ; but I beg members to bear in mind 
that there are two things, first, that which is divine 
and settled, and, second, that which is 
human and alterable. I think the great 
mistake we are liable to make is that 
we are continually elevating that which is human, 
and placing it upon the platform of that which is 
divine and unalterable. In other words, you are 
liable to the temptation of teaching for doctrines 
the commandments of men. Now, I say Rubrics 
are not doctrine ; they are not of Divine authority. 
There is an element which has come down to us, ex- 
isting with the Word itseK, the Apostolic ministry, 
the holy Sacraments, but no one will 
pretend to say that Liturgies or Rubrics, or 
any amendment of Rubrics, can possibly 
be raised to the same platform, and I 
say the mistakes we have made in time past in re- 
gard to the Methodists we are in danger of repeat- 
ing this very day. I do not wish to reflect on the 
character of this Convention, but I say we have 
made a mistake. What did the Methodists desire 
to do ? They were willing to receive our Sacra- 
ments ; they were wilhng to receive Ordination at 
our hands ; but our Conventions would insist that 
every line and letter of our Liturgy shoidd be im- 
posed upon them. We see a great deal of what is 
called— 

The PRESIDENT. The time has come for the 
recess. The gentleman will have three minutes 
after the reassembling. ["Go on now."] The 
gentlemen will proceed if there be no objection. 

Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. I only want 
to say a word for the old Evangelicals. We often 
hear it said " in essentials, unity ; in non-essentials, 
liberty." I would ask, what in connection with 
the baptismal service is essential, except the in- 
spired formulas in connection with the admin- 
istration of the water ? And yet we will 
not allow liberty in reference to these 
things ; we put down our foot and say, ' ' No ; we 
are in essentials united, but in non-essentials no 
liberty whatever." I was glad for one that the pro- 
position came up, at the beginning of this session, 
that we allow a member of the Russo-Greek Church 
to come among us and take his place here. It was a 
step in the right direction. I would not oppose it, 
while I could not conscientiously advocate it ; but 
it is a step in the right direction, and it is a hopeful 
sign of the times. But, while we stretch out our 
hand on the right, shall we not also on the 
left ? Shall we not pray in the language 
of the Liturgy, in reference to the Holy Catholic 
Church, that all who profess and call themselves 
Christians may not merely be bound together by an 
outward, historical tie, but also may be led into the 
way of truth. Old Bishop Hobart's motto was, 
"Evangelic truth; truth always before order." 
You recollect the sentiment of an Archbishop: 
" Give me leave to change twenty words in a certain 
service, and I will add twenty thousand members 
to our Church in less than a month." And yet, in 
things which involve no sacrifice of principle, we 
will not allow even that much hberty. 

There are a few points which I should like to di- 
late upon, but I cannot in the limited time allowed. 
I thank the Convention for the attention with which 
they have received my remarks. 

The PRESIDENT. The time for the recess has 



387 



arrived and the House takes a recess until two 
o'clock. 

Tiie House resumed its session at two o'clock p.m. 

THE LECTIONARY FOR LENT, ETC. 

A message (No. 92) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced that that House did not concur in Message 
No. 91 from the House of Deputies, amending Mes- 
sage No. 60 from the House of Bishops relating to a 
Lectionary for Lent, and asked for a Committee of 
Conference on the subject, and appointed as such 
Committee on its part the Bishop of Texas, the 
Bishop of Pennsylvania, the Bishop of Maine. 

Mr. OTIS, of imnois. I move that we appoint a 
Committee of Conference as requested by the Bish- 
ops, but I do not wish to be on the Committee. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the President ap- 
pointed Rev. Dr. Beach, of New York, Rev, Dr. 
Fulton, of Alabama, and Mr. Sheffey, of Virginia, 
the conferees on the part of the House of Deputies. 

TIME OF FINAL ADJOURNMENT. 

A message (No. 93) from the House of Bishops 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That the G-eneral Convention will adjourn on Tues- 
day evening, after the reading of the Pastoral Let- 
ter." 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move that we 
concur in that resolution, and I will make a verbal 
report on behalf of the Committee of Conference. 
The other House expect to nominate to us a 
Missionary Bishop this afternoon. There will 
probably be another, and they have not heard yet 
of the acceptance of the Bishop-elect of Cliina. 
There is other business which will make it im- 
possible for the Bishops to have the Pastoral Letter 
read earlier than to-morrow evening. It will be 
read in this building, unless otherwise ordered. I 
move that we concur in the resolution. 

Several MEMBERS. At what hour to-mor- 
row evening 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. At half-past 
seven. We shall be very glad to have the mind of 
the House as to the place. Most of the gentlemen 
who go up town find it inconvenient to return here. 

The resolution was concurred in. 

RUBRICAL REVISION. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution for the ap- 
pointment of a Commission on Rubrical Revision is 
before the House. 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. Believing, sir, that 
no benefit will flow from a further protracted dis- 
cussion of the matter, I move that the vote be taken 
in fifteen minutes. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I suggest a mo- ' 
tion to lay it on the table, so as to test tlie sense of 
the House. 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. Very weU. , 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. Mr. ! 
President, in the debate upon this subject, the con- , 
sideration of its merits has become so involved with ; 
other considerations, the lateness of the hour, the ; 
thinness of the Convention, the difficulty, possibly, i 
of having it acted upon, as so great a matter as this 
should be, by the House of Bishops, that I move 
now that the consideration of the resolution be in- 
definitely postponed. I do not understand this as 
necessarily cutting short the debate. 1 

The PRESIDENT. The motion is debatable. ! 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North CaroUna. I shall 
be very sorry to have the resolution rejected entire- 
ly upon its merits. It seems to me that it desei^ves , 
some consideration, and ought to have it in a 
fuUer House and with more time and less impa- i 
tience than we aU naturally feel at this hour of the I 



session. It is a measure which, in my judgment, 
must come sooner or later. The only point is 
when ? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Let the motion be, that, on account of the lateness 
of the hour, this matter be referred to the next 
General Convention. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I think 
it better to adhere to my originai motion that the 
resolution of Rubrical revision be indefinitely post- 
poned. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. If 
this motion be voted down, I will move then to re- 
fer it to the next General Convention, the nde being 
that a motion to defer to a time certain follows a 
motion to indefinitely postpone. 

The PRESIDENT. To postpone to a time certain 
comes first. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
stand corrected. The gentleman from North Carolina 
moves an indefinite postponement of the subject of 
Rubrical re^asion. I move in lieu of that to refer 
the matter to the next General Convention ; that is, 
a time certain. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I trust that motion will 
not prevail. We do not want to unsettle the mind 
of the Church on this subject. It will be like the 
adversary going about to seek whom he may 
devour. We are unwilling to entertain the idea. 
If we appoint a commission of this kind, they will 
be bound to see if there is not some screw loose 
somewhere. 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. Is the motion 
to postpone indefinitely amendable ? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
do not move to amend it. The privileged motions 
are, first, to lay on the table ; second, to postpone to 
a time certain; tlilrd, to postpone indefinitely; and 
the rule says that these motions shall have priority 
in the order named. I therefore move, as a privi- 
leged motion, that this matter be referred to the 
next General Convention. 

Rev. Dr. ROGERS, of Texas. I rise to a point of 
order. The gentleman says he moves to defer to 
a time certain ; but it must be a time certain under 
the control of this Convention ; and the next Gen- 
eral Convention is no such time certain. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. What motions 
are before the House, may I ask ? 

The PRESIDENT. The motion I have heard is 
the motion to postpone indefinitely the resolution 
before the House. The motion that has precedence 
over that is to postpone to a time certain instead of 
indefinitely, 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. It 
is a common practice of the Parliament of Great 
Britain, instead of moving an mdefinite postpone- 
ment of a ma.tter, to move to postpone it until after 
the adjoumment — to postpone it to a day beyond 
the session— to kill it ; and if the Parliament of 
Great Britain, under a motion to postpone to a time 
certain, can postpone to a day that must fall beyond 
their session, it is competent for us to move here to 
postpone a matter to the next Convention. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I thought I 
heard a motion to lay the whole matter on the 
table. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has heard no such 
motion. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. One session of Parlia- 
ment may refer a matter to another session of Par- 
hament. This House is not like that. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
say it is the daily practice of the Parliament of 
Great Britain to postpone a motion to a day when 
no Parhament can be in session or in existence. 

The PRESIDENT. Certainly; but that does not 



388 



come into this matter of a privileged question under 
our rules. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
The reason that motion is made in the British Par- 
liament is in order to get in a motion which takes 
precedence of other motions. It is a privileged mo- 
tion to postpone to a day certain, and it is perfectly 
competent for any man to move in this House that 
the consideration of any matter be postponed to 
the first day of the next meeting, and it is in order 
and the effect is to kill the proposition. It is done 
in parliamentary bodies. It is done in England 
constantly. Is not my motion in order ? 

The PRESIDENT. I do not think it comes within 
the privileged motions. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Then I have a word to say, and for the purpose of 
saying a word I appeal from the decision, though I 
do not mean to press the appeal. The motion is to 
postpone indefinitely. The Chair has ruled that a 
motion to postpone to the next General Convention 
is not a motion to postpone to a time certain, to 
which I submit. I therefore wish to say simply 
that I am opposed to the motion for indefinite post- 
ponement, for the reason that it amounts to sajring 
that this Convention never wish to consider the 
subject of Rubrical revision, that they wish 
never to hear of it. The main reason for not act- 
ing on it is that the lateness of the session precludes 
us from giving it that attention which it deserves. 
I am not in favor even of that, for there is no ques- 
tion of detail ; there is no question of deliberation ; 
it is a simple question whether this House will let 
a body of men present to the next General Conven- 
tion for their consideration what any member of 
this House can do to-day. If it was not for 
the rule against the introduction of new mat- 
ter, any man in this House could offer to 
the Convention to-day the largest revision of 
Rubrics, and ask for its adoption as 
a proposed amendment to be sent down to the 
Dioceses. This proposes, instead of leaving it to 
somebody to prepare it without organization, that 
we organize the best Committee we can have to 
present the subject to the next General Convention 
for their consideration, and if they see fit to pro- 
pose it to the next Convention after that they can 
do so. If they do not like the looks of it, they 
can throw it on the table, or postpone it, or 
do nothing Mdth it. It can do no hairm. 
Gentlemen suggest that a motion to revise the sta- 
tutes is a motion that they are uncertain now. That 
idea, I say, is absurd, with due respect. A motion 
to revise any code of Rubrics, laws, or legislation, 
is a motion which involves one fact, and one only, 
that they are not absolutely infallible and abso- 
lutely perfect, it involves that, and nothing more 
and nothing less. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I want to say 
only two words. I move that all the amendments, 
except the original resolution from the Committee, 
be laid on the table. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
There are no amendments. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. There is a mo- 
tion for indefinite postponement. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
That is not an amendment. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I move that the 
motion for indefinite postponement be laid on the 
table, so that we may get at the original proposi- 
tion. I say that, if this Convention pass this resolu- 
tion, it is simply leading to confusion and to uncer- 
tainty for the next three years ; it is unsettling the 
Prayer-Book. We elect fourteen men by ballot out 
of this House upon the question of Rubrics, which 
I, as a rector of this Church, declare is the most 
difiicult question that can be brought forward, the 



most extensive, and the most wonderful question. 
To take fourteen men by ballot out of this 
House, to appoint a Commission on this 
point, would be properly met by a 
motion to send the sexton out of the door of this 
House, and to take the fourteen next men he met on 
the street to do the best thing. 

I hope that this House, knowing the mischievous 
nature of this commission, will lay on the table eveiy- 
thing except the original proposition, which comes 
down to us from the Committee, and give us a 
chance to settle that, and to teU this Church that we 
are not going to appoint a commission of ignorance, 
incompetence, and in judiciousness upon the Rubrics 
of the Church, many of which have come down to 
us from the time of the Apostles. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I move to lay the 
whole subject on the table. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Let us have the 
direct vote, in order that the Church may know 
what is the sense of this House. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to lay the whole 
subject on the table. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I rise to a point 
of order. My point is, that by a resolution of this 
House more than twenty minutes ago, we agreed 
that the vote should be taken in fifteen minutes. I 
hope the vote will be taken directly. I intend to 
vote " no." 

Mr. WILDER, of Minnesota. I made the mo- 
tion to take the vote in fifteen minutes, but I had 
not the floor. Another gentleman had it and I sub- 
sided. 

The PRESIDENT. No such motion was put. It 
is now moved to lay the whole subject on the table. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
miderstood distinctly that motion was made hy a 
reverend gentleman from Wisconsin, to lay on the 
table the question of indefinite postponement. 

The PRESIDENT. But another motion has been 
made since to lay the whole matter on the table. 

Mr. CASS, of Pittsburgh. The wish, in this part 
of the House, is to have a direct vote on the ques- 
tion. I hope it will be so settled that we can have a 
direct vote. We want a vote either "no" or 
"aye." 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. In this 
part of the House we do not want a direct vote, be- 
cause the proposition has not been discussed 
thoroughly, and therefore the only course is, if it is 
not to be acted upon now, to lay it on the table. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. What is the 
motion before us ? 

The PRESIDENT. To lay on the table. 

Mr. SHEFFE Y, of Virginia. I wish to say to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin that a motion to lay a 
motion for indefinite postponement on the 
table is not in order. If the House desire to re- 
sort to the motion to lay on the table, that motion 
would take precedence of the motion to indefinitely 
postpone, and must apply to the original resolution. 
That motion the gentleman from Pittsburgh has 
submitted. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the mo- 
tion to lay the resolution on the table. 
The motion was not agreed to. 
Mr. SHEFFE Y, of Virginia. The question being 
now open to debate, I desire to say a few words. 

Mr. CASE, of Pittsburgh. Will the gentleman 
allow me to ask the Chair a question. To what 
i length of time is debate now limited ? 

The PRESIDENT. Five minutes by each speaker. 
I Mr. SHEFFE Y, of Virginia. Mr. President, 
j what is it that is proposed in this resolution ? It does 
seem to me that this Convention ima gines that when 
it adjourns, it in the future is afraid to trust any 
; other Convention ^ Why ? What is the proposi- 
tion ? That a commission of twenty-one wise and 



889 



discreet men, to be chosen by yourselves, shall make a 
report containing- in any event vastlj^ valuable in- 
formation to the Church', at the next session of the 
General Convention. It binds nobody. It 
pledges no one by way of committal to 
any of the recommendations of that commission, 
because we do not know now what the Com- 
mission may report. When it comes up at the next 
session of the General Convention, the Convention 
then in being— and I trust that it v/iil be as wise, 
that it will be as conservative, that it will be as 
true to all the teachings of the Prayer-Book and of 
the Church as we are — when that report comes before 
as wise, as loyal, and as true a body of men as we 
are, that body will then say, " Yie approve this sug- 
gestion," " We approve that suggestion." And up- 
on that proposition a majority of all the Lay Depu- 
ties and of all the Clerical Deputies must be had, and 
then the House of Bishops are to say, "We approve 
this suggestion in Goncurrence with the House of Cler- 
ical and Lay Deputies." What then ? Then for three 
years more the entire mind of this great Church, 
from California to Maine, and from the Gulf of 
Mexico to the Lakes, will consider again the pro- 
posed points of Rubrical revision. In the name of 
aU that is just or according to common sense, if at 
the end of nine years this Church, thus advised, 
thus cautioned, and thus put upon its guard, chooses 
to say this or that change shall be made, may it not 
then be properly made ? 

I say again, I am not afraid to trust this noble 
old Chm-ch of ours. I am not afraid to tnist it in 
its constitutional modes of acting. It is not de- 
pendent on the will of party or the will of man 
here or there ; but the consentaneous will, three 
three times expressed, of a great Church, involving 
its usefulness, its success, its effort, to the devotion 
and gloiy and honor of God. 

Representing as I do the sentiment of the old Dio- 
cese of Virginia, I may be pardoned for makiug one 
remark. It is this: Again has Virginia been twitted 
for her old back policy ; but in this demonstration 
that I now make I place Virginia alongside of the 
progress of theChurch in favor of developing the pow- 
er and resources of the Church for its ultimate purpo- 
ses ; and pennit me to say that if, in the providence 
of God, calamity should befall this loved Church 
of ours, if the storm should come, and the gallant 
old ship should, as God forefend, ever be driven up- 
on the breakers — mark what I say — Virginia, the 
Diocese of ancient tradition, will in that hour of 
trial be found opposed, as she has alw-ays been, to 
extremes on the one side and extremes on the other, 
standing nearest to the mast, if the ship ever goes 
down. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. As 
weU as 1 can tu the five minutes allotted to me, I 
propose to meet the argument urged this morning 
by the very eloquent Lav Deputy from South Ca- 
rolina [Mr. Smith]. He' argued that if we passed 
this resolution, we should stultify om- previous ac- 
tion in passing the Canon on Ritual. I desire, if I 
may, to turn the argument against him in this way: 
We stultify oui'selves in having passed 
that Canon; if we do not now pass this ; 
for what was that Canon i' It was a Canon 
for the better enforcement of the Ritual 
law of the Church. That Canon did not make Ritual 
law. It provided a method for the quicker enforce- 
ment of law already existing. That is the true 
character of that Canon. Things that were lawful 
before are lawful now. Things that are unlawful 
now were unlawful then. It is, in other words, pre- 
cisely parallel to the measure lately passed in Eng- 
land known as the Public Worehip BiU ; and what 
was the state of things there ? The moment the 
Public Worship BiU had been passed, the need of a 
Commission for Rubrical revision was at once ap- 



])arent; and so it has come to pass with us. The 
moment we passed our Canon, which might properly 
be entitled "a Canon for the better enforcement of 
the Ordination Vow," that moment we saw the ab- 
solute necessity of ascertaining what the Rubrical 
law of the Church is. 

And let High Churchmen in this body disabuse 
themselves of the idea that this measure is being 
pushed by radicals for radical ends. Nothing of the 
sort. There is no desire on the part of the promo- 
ters of this measure to impoverish the Liturgical 
worship of this Church. Their only desire is that 
we may avoil ourselves of its riches. Their only 
desire is that this admirable wonderful service may 
be better adapted to the needs of this land; and 
there is no other way in which it can be done save 
in this way of Rubrical revision. 

Six years ago the discerning eye of the now Bishop 
of Long Island, then a mem^ber of this House — and 
I may, without impropriety-, refer to a member of 
the other House — saw that this was the only proper 
course, and he advocated it here. He was met, if I 
remember rightly, by the learned and venerable 
Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin (Dr Adams) with the 
rejoinder that in six years it was hoped the trouble 
world be over, which his measure was intended to 
meet. Sir, those six years are past, and the trouble is 
still more aggravated than then. The proper remedy 
was then, and is now. Rubrical revision, carefully, 
lovingly, and studiously, of the text. 

Do you speak of hasty action ? Can any action 
that extends over a period of nine years, and tenta- 
tive at that, be properly called hasty ? 

But now, sir, I have only a few moments of my 
five minutes left. AUow me also to try and meet 
the argument of another Lay Deputy from South 
Carolina [Mr. McCrady], from whom I always dif- 
fer with pain, and consequently am almost always 
in pain, for we are almost always differing. 
[Laughter.] 

He argued that the measure is unconstitutional. 
How unconstitutional ? What method could be 
more constitutional than this i We do not even 
propose a change in the Rubrics : we simply pro- 
pose a Commission to enquire whether any change, 
and if any, what change, is needed to imake the 
Common Prayer-Book better meet the needs of this 
Church ; and he says, if we are to do it at all, let us 
do it piecemeal. I ask the gentleman if he had an 
old family mansion falling out of repair, is that the 
method in which he would go to work to remedy 
the evil ? No ; he would call in a skilled architect ; 
he would say: What is needed to make my old fam- 
ily mansion weather-proof ; give me your plan, 
now ; I will do it ; and put it in such shape that I 
shall not have to touch it for thirty years to come." 
We want, sir, to put the worship of this Church in 
such a shape that it shall not have to be touched for 
one hundred years to come. 

I know not whether this measure is destined to 
meet with success or failure, but I know this, 
that the minorities of the present are the majori- 
ties of the future ; and feeling almost as confi- 
dent that before this Church has completed the first 
century of its independent life this measure or 
some measure kindi'ed to it will be passed, as that 
this Church will be in existence then, I feel the 
hope, and shall not allow myself to be discom-aged, 
whatever may be the fate of this measure. But de- 
pend upon it, it is not a radical measiu-e ; it is con- 
ceived in the true spirit of conservatism, that spirit 
which we find illustrated by God working in Nature, 
where we see that everywhere the law of life is 
conservation by repair. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Mr. President, the 
gentleman from Virginia put the true state of the 
case before us when he said that if this is to be done, 
it is to be done by the consecutive good-will of three 



different Conventions. I agree to that. Conse- 
quently, the portion of his argument, which was 
that because it goes to two more Conventions we 
are to send it regardless of our own opinions, is not 
good. If we, to-day, beUeve that the Prayer-Book 
should be amended — that its Rubi'ics should be 
changed— then we are exactly riglit in sending it to a 
commission. But the gentleman has said that we are 
one of three, and so we are, and we are not to dele- 
gate our opinions or our authority to the next Con- 
vention, nor the next after. If we believe that the 
Prayer-Book should be amended, we should send it 
to a commission ; but if we, exercising our own 
rights and our own duties, first, as representatives 
of this Church here ; second, as members of this 
Church at large ; third, as clergymen in this Church, 
believe that it is better now than it can be made, 
that it is unsafe to send it to a commission 
to hunt up its faults, to compromise with 
this party and with that—I say if we 
believe that the history of the Irish Church is such 
that it is not exactly safe to part our Prayer-Book 
into anybody's hands, if we believe that the faith 
kept in the old garment is better than it would be 
distilled into a new ; if we believe that the house 
which the gentleman speaks of does not need re- 
pairing, that it has stood as it is almost one hundred 
years and is sound now ; if we believe that all tear- 
ing down and tinkering is wrong, then resting 
upon our duty we refuse to send it to a com- 
mission. I say to you now that the first 
thing that ever attracted my attention 
to the Episcopal Church was that its faith was done 
up in sound words and sound forms, and I knew 
just where to find it. 

There is another fact. You say you are not going 
to touch the faith, but you may. You may take 
out the soul from the body of the Prayer-Book by 
these Rubrics ; you may do it in spite of the text. 
Allow now this to be said and now that, pufc in this 
Rubric a little different and that a little different, 
and the very congregations will not recognize the 
old Prayer-Book in what is read and prayed in their 
hearing and by themselves. 

I love the Prayer-Book ; I love it as it is. I hope 
to live and to die by it, and I will never raise my 
hand, as I now understand the case, to send it to 
any Commission on earth. If there is a word of 
change needed, let that change come before the 
Convention ; let it decide that it is needed, and send 
it down to the next General Convention v/ith its ap- 
proval upon it, and then, when it shall have passed 
through the Dioceses from end to end 
of this country, and come up at the next 
General Convention; if that Convention believes 
with the one that sends it down, the change 
is made, and we know what we are doiug. 
But when this comes in here three years hence, with 
a Commission's report upon it, every member of 
that Commission is pledged to it, and they come 
here, they say, in the spirit of compromise. " I say 
in the spirit of destruction. When the time shall 
come for voting upon this great, this most moment- 
ous question, in my mind, that has been before this 
Convention from the first to the last, I hope the 
voice will be one that shall tell from Maine to Cali- 
fornia that the Prayer-Book is safe in the hands of 
its friends and the Church. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi- 
dent, it seems to me a very great pity that some 
remarks made in favor of this measure should have 
evidently, in the mind of the Convention, told 
against it. Certain speeches that were made have 
left the impression that the object of the appoint- 
ment of this Commission was in some way to touch 
the baptismal service. I am free to say that if I 
thought this Commission was to be appointed with 
any such intention, or if I supposed, provided it were 



appointed with any such intention, that it would be 
possible for this Church to throw the slightest doubt 
upon the great doctrine of baptismal regeneration, 
I should be utterly and totally opposed to it. 

It may be supposed, on the other hand, that the 
fact of my supporting this may be because I fancy 
that in some way some new doctrine in the other 
direction may be introduced into the Prayer-Book. 
Allow me to say for myself how far I speak for 
others. I can say that I v»'a,nt no alteration in 
the Book of Common. Prayer doctrinally in any 
direction whatsoever. I accept it, and have 
always accepted it ex aniino, from the begin- 
ning to the end. I never have to supplement 
it in any direction, even in the deepest i-ecesses of 
my OY^n heart. I suppose that the object of ap- 
pointing this Commission is nothing of that sort. 
It is neither in one direction nor in the other, but 
to meet a difficulty which, put it aside from us as 
we may, unquestionably exists, and I believe that 
this difficulty, which I will speak of in a moment, is 
the cause of one of the troubles that exist in our 
Church at the present day. 

Have we, or have we not, a distinct law of wor- 
ship in this Church ? And I answer — and I believe 
that there is no one here but will agree with me — I 
i answer no, for if anybody pretends to say that the 
Rubric, the Book of Common Prayer, prescribes a 
system of worship, he is only saying what there is 
not 0. clergyman in this Church who does not assert 
j by his acts that he does not beHeve. It wa,s an in- 
stance of confusion on this subject which prevails 
even amongst those who are supposed to understand 
the matter the best, that the Bishops 
when they sent down the amendment to the Canon 
of Ritual, actuallj^ proposed — or at least it was pro- 
posed in the Committee of Conference— that there 
should be in this Church of ours, in its v/orship, 
nothing done which was not ordained or authorized 
in the Book of Common Prayer; and from the bow- 
ing in the Creed at the name of our Blessed Saviour 
up to the use of any vestments whatsoever, we are 
doing things which are not ordained or authorized 
in our Book of Common Prayer. Why, Mr. Presi- 
dent, if the Book of Common'Prayer be a directory 
of public worship, actually we have no right 
to use even a surplice, a stole, a cassock, or 
bands, or any thing else. Everybody knows that we 
have no distinct law of worship. 

Put it off if you please ; if this is not the time ; if 
there are hidden difficulties which people know of, 
and which are not upon the surface in^this matter, 
it may be right to postpone it ; but it seems to me 
that to vote down this i-esolution is to declare against 
the solitary measures which have been brought for- 
ward in this House, which shows, as the Clerical 
Deputy from Massachusetts said the other day, any- 
thing like true statesmanship. 

Rev. Mr. HASKINS, of Long Island. I believe, 
sir, contrary to the opinion of the last speaker, that 
this commission changing Rubrics will touch doc- 
ti'ine, as the doctrine of regeneration in baptism. I 
believe it in this way. We have had it brought be- 
fore us by the Deputy from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Welsh], that the Rubric requires baptism to be per- 
formed after the first and second lesson of morning 
service. Suppose that Rubric be changed, so as to 
allow that baptism be done in a corner, 
or, as is done now frequently, between ser- 
vices, or after service, will it not in the course 
of a few years drop out entirely the belief in the 
i doctrine of regeneration on the part of this Church? 
1 As an illustration, I would say that some twenty 
1 years ago, I was in the Diocese of Ohio, and I re- 
1 quested the rector of a church to allow me to stand 
} sponsor for a child to be baptized, and to present that 
j child that afternoon for baptism. He said, ' 'Yes, bring 
' the child at one o'clock." I told him the service 



391 



was at three o'clock, and I wished to present the 
child after the second lesson of the afternoon ser- 
"^ce, as the Rubric required. Said he, " It is never 
so done here." "Very well," said I, " I am a rubri- 
cal man, and I wish so to i^resent that child to be 
baptized. "Very well, sir, we will do it." He gave j 
out notice in tlae morning, at the time of giving the i 
notices, that the usual monthly baptisms would be i 
held at one o'clock, and also after the second lesson | 
in the afternoon service, as the Rubric required, and i 
he was very glad to say that the Church ' 
had appointed that Rubric, and his at- | 
tention had been called to it, and j 
therefore he would baptize children in the af- 
teruoon at tlaat time. I presented the child, and it 
was done. I maintain that all those churches where 
the child is not baptized after the second lesson and 
before the congregation, who ought to join in the 
prayer, where the thing is done in a coi ner, gives 
the whole doctrine the go-by; the congregation do 
not know as to what the Chm'ch believes and holds 
as to the doctrine of baptism. Our children are 
brought up without the knowledge of the true in- 
terpi etation of the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
tion. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. Mr. President, 
the argument of the reverend gentleman who has 
just spoken is not against the wisdom of the ap- 
pointment of this Commission, but against the wis- 
dom of acquiescing in some possible recommenda- 
tion of theirs. Therefore it must fall to the ground. 
No proposition to alter Rubrics is before the House. 
The question is simply, shall we appoint a commis- 
sion to take this whole matter into consideration, a 
commission of wise men to deliberate what changes, 
if any, are practicable and advisable ? 

Sir, there are many on this floor, I doubt not, who, 
like myself, are in favor of this proposition were it 
to be decided upon its merits, who yet may be 
obliged to vote against it, inasmuch as at this hour 
of the session we are not prepared carefully and de- 
liberately to acquiesce in its terms. The resolution 
provides that we shall, by ballot, select seven clergy- 
men and seven laymen, who shall be charged with this 
matter. It is a very important matter, and one that 
we should undertake with exceeding deliberation, 
to select fourteen such men. I know of no body of 
men proposed to be appointed by this House whom 
I should feel disposed to select without some delay, 
without much care and scrutiny. Therefore I say 
that many who are in favor of the proposition may 
be obliged to vote against it on that ground simply. 
If, however, it shall pass on its merits — and I 
do not propose to debate its merits — 
perhaps the difficulty may be got over in this way, 
by deciding now upon the Commission, and fixing 
an houi' to-morrow when we shall go into this bal- 
lot, giving us twenty-four hours to think and consult 
with each other, in order to select, if possible, a body of 
men who shaU know something of the doctrine of 
the Church, who shall know something of its prac- 
tice, who shall know something of its needs, who 
shall be fit and proper men to be charged with this 
most important work. 

I hope that we shall not let this matter go by, for 
sooner or later it will come up before us, and the 
sooner we begin to think upon it, the better. Some 
gentlemen are in favor of individual concrete pro- 
positions being brought up, and decided individually 
on this floor ; but we know that these propositions 
all originate in the minds of single individuals 
who have their own favorite schemes to further. 
Therefore, they do not consider the proper 
relativity of things ; they are only in fa- 
vor of this one proposition, without con- 
sidering how it may affect, immediately or re- 
motely, a score of others. That is one argument 
why the matter should be undertaken by men who 



will have the full subject in charge, who will do 
everything with deliberation, and where the wis- 
dom of each one will be supplemented by the 
wisdom of the others ; and then, if they shall agree 
upon their result, still this Convention — not now, 
but hereafter — will decide on each one separately 
on its merits. Surely it is not fair by a vote to lay 
on the table a proposition like this, which so many 
on this floor have so nearly at heart ! 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. Mr. 
President, it is with a great deal of hesitation that 
I venture to say one word that would bring me in 
conflict with one so skilful in debate as the Rev. 
Deputy from Wisconsin ; but when I heard his 
statement of the grounds upon which he 
intended to support this measure, and the 
advantage that would result from it, I must con- 
fess that I was greatly surprised. I have alwa,ys 
imderstood from the expression of his views, and 
from the general idea that I had of the views of 
many who are supposed to be in sympathy with 
him, that what they desired was not a rigid law of 
uniformity, but something that would allow free- 
dom of opinion and freedom of practice. But I 
have heard him here distinctly assert that we have 
no law or definite rule of worship in the Church, 
and that it is the intention and design by means of 
this Commission to get a system of Rubrics which 
will define just what a person shall do and just what 
a person shall not; just the garments, for instance — 
for he specified the garments — ^he shall wear, and 
just what he shall not. He did not use those words, 
but by illustrating by means of vestments, it is a 
fair inference from his speech. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin, It was not 
my idea. 

Rev. Dr, PARET, of Central Pennsylvania, StiU 
I inferred it, and I think it would be inferred by the 
Convention, from the gentleman's statement, that 
something more precise, defining just what we are 
to do and v/hat we are not to do, was sought. I felt 
satisfied that the general sense of this House, the 
general sense of the Church, would be opposed to 
any system of Rubrics which would so accurately 
define or lay down laws to bind us in the conduct 
of public service ; that there is under our 
present system ample law to hold us to 
a general course of uniformity ; that there 
is under it also ample liberty and toleration 
for different opinions. I am utterly averse, there- 
fore, after spending so long a time as we have here 
in bringing things to a settlement, and determining 
some point, to crowning the work of the Conven- 
tion by voting that we upset everything and leave 
all in confusion. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the reso- 
lution reported by the Committee on Canons rela- 
tive to Rubrical revision. 

The resolution was rejected, there being on a 
division, ayes 53, noes 66. 

GERMAN PRAYER-BOOK. 

A message (No. from the House of Bishops in- 
formed the House of Deputies that it concurred in 
message No. 90 from the House of Deputies, contin- 
uing the Joint Committee on the German Prayer- 
Book, and in message No. 93, from the House of De- 
puties, appointing a Joint Committee on Pubhcation 
of the Journal, and the House of Bishops named, as 
the member of the said Joiut Committee, on its 
part, the Bishop of Central Pennsylvania, 

BISHOP OF NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. 

A message (No. 9.5) from the House of Bishops an- 
noimced tue adoption, by that House, of the follow- 
ing resolutions : 
[ " Resolved, 1st. That the Territory of New Mexi- 



392 



CO is hereby detached from the jurisdiction of the 
Missionary Bishop of Colorado. 

"2d. That the Territory of Arizona be detached 
from the jurisdiction of the Missionary Bishop of 
Nevada, 

"3d. The Territories of New Mexico and Arizona 
are hereby constituted the jurisdiction of a Mission- 
ary Bishop, and the House of Bishops informs the 
House of Deputies that it has nominated as Mission- 
ary Bishop for New Mexico and Arizona, the Rev. 
William F. Adams, Rector of St. Paul's Church, New 
Orleans, in the Diocese of Louisiana. " 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. I move that 
the formal part of the message of the House of 
Bishops be concurred in, and that the House proceed 
to the election of the Missionary Bishop at once. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I oifer an amend- 
ment iixing it for five o'clock. Unless we get through 
a great deal of business to-day, we shall have to re- 
main till Wednesday night. If we work to-day, we 
can get through to-morrow night. 

Several DEPUTIES. Say half -past four. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I do hope the motion 
made by the Clerical Deputy from Louisiana will 
prevail. I myself am compelled to leave the House 
permanently in the course of an hour at 
most, and I should like to give my testi- 
mony in favor of the nominee before 
I leave the House, and I should like to have the 
pleasure of voting for him. There are several oth- 
ers I know who are going. I am the only Lay Rep- 
resentative from our Diocese now here, and to tell 
you the truth, I stayed over from last night to this 
time for the express purpose of saying something 
on this subject and voting on it. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Will not four o'clock do ? 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Is the mover 
willing to suspend the rule about closed doors in this 
case i 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. I am. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Very well. 
Then I am willing. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I second the motion to 
suspend the rule as to closed doors. 

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. It would be in- 
vidious, af fcer having sat with closed doors on other 
gentlemen who have been sent dov/n to us, to re- 
move it now. Having adopted it, we ought to stick 
to it. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. It 
would be a very dangerous precedent, because we 
should not know wxiat we are doing. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to suspend the 
rule which requires the House to sit with closed 
doors on the nomination of a Bishop. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I am willing, as 
a compromise, to fix on half -past four. 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. Here are 
gentlemen going away. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion is that the House 
proceed to the election of a Missionary Bishop at 
half -past four. [ " Pour. " " Four. "] 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I am willing to 
make it four o'clock. 

Mr. RACE, of Louisiana. I move an amend- 
ment to go into the election at half-past three 
o'clock. 

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I move to pro- 
ceed immediately. 

The PRESIDENT. The original motion was to 
proceed immediately. The amendment is to pro- 
ceed at four o'clock. The question will be taken on 
the motions in their order. The first question will 
be on fixing four o'clock. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The question now is on fixing 



half -past three for the election of the Missionary 
Bishop to New Mexico and Arizona. 
The motion was agreed to. 

SPANISH PRAYER-BOOK. 

Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. I 
move that the Committee on the Translation of the 
Prayer-Book into the Spanish Language be en- 
larged by the addition of Mr. Stark, of Coimecticut. 

The PRESIDENT. I will state that Mr. Stark's 
name was accidentally left olf the Committee. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The nomination will be sent 
to the House of Bishops, because they have already 
acted on our previous nomination. 

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. There is 
an order for the day for this time, but we cannot 
do anything with it in ten minutbs, which is all we 
have left. Let it be read, however. 

The House proceeded to consider the following 
resolution reported by the Committee on Canons : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). 
That Sections 2 and 3 of Canon 4, of Title IL, 'Of 
Differences between Ministers and their Congrega- 
tions, and of the Dissolution of a Pastoral Connec- 
tion,' be amended so as to read as follows: 

" Sec. 2. The five Presbyters thus designated shall 
constitute a Board of Reference to consider such 
controversy ; and shall meet in the city or county 
in which such rector or assistant minister lives, or 
elsewhere, as the parties may agree. It shall be the 
duty of such Board to adjust, if possible, the differ- 
ences without dissolving the connection be- 
tween the rector or assistant minister, or the vestry 
or congregation; and for this purpose the Board is 
empowered to recommend terms of settlement; and 
if after hearing such allegations and proofs as the 
parties may submit, a majority of the Presbyters, 
the whole Board being present, shall be of opinion 
that there is no favorable termination of such con- 
troversy, and that a dissolution of the connection 
between such rector or assistant minister and his 
parish or congregation, is necessary to restore the 
peace of the Church, and promote its prosperity, 
such Presbyters shall recommend to the Bishop that 
such minister shall be required to relinquish his con- 
nection with said Church or parish, on such con- 
ditions as may appear to them proper and reasonable, 
including the adjustment of all pecuniary claims 
between the parties. 

"Sec. 3. If the Bishop approve the recommen- 
dation of the Presbyters, and^f the rector or as- 
sistant minister refuse to comply with the require- 
ment of the Bishop and Presbyters, made in pur- 
suance of such recommendation, the Bishop shall 
proceed to forbid him the exercise of any minis- 
terial functions within the Diocese, until he shall re- 
tract his refusal ; and if he persist in his refusal, it 
shall be the duty of the Bishop to dissolve the con- 
nection between the said rector and vestry or con- 
gregation; or if the vestry or congregation shall 
refuse to comply with any such recommendation, 
they shall not be allowed any representation in the 
Diocesan Convention until they shall have retracted 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. We concurred 
in certain amendments sent down by the Bishops as 
an independent proposition, and we then presented 
on our part certain amendments to the Canon. I 
should like to know which this is. 
■ Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carohna. I will 
say that the Canon was reported by us, and then re- 
committed on the motion, I think, of tiie gentleman 
from Texas. Inasmuch as I beUeve there will be 
something said in reference to it on the other side, I 



393 



should like to put before the House the precise ac- 
tion of the Committee. 

With reference to Section 1, a proposition came 
from the House of Bishops to amend the phraseology 
in the fifth and sixth lines, beginning with the 
words, " make application to the Bishop of the Dio- 
cese, who shall " ; they proposed to amend that so as 
to read, " may refer the matter to the Bishop of the 
Diocese, who may." That was the first action of 
the Committee. The House of Bishops also pro- 
posed an amendment of Section 3, providing that if 
the minister shall not retract his refusal, and shall 
continue not to retract, he shall then be liable to 
have his coimection entirely severed. 

The Committee, however, have introduced other 
amendments. In Section 2 they propose to intro- 
duce after the word "controversy" in the third 
line, a provision requiring the Board to meet in the 
city or county of the clergyman who constitutes one 
party to the suit so as to make it convenient to him, 
and not permit him to be dragged to inconvenient 
and perhaps impossible distances, involving him in 
such ruinous expense that he would be obliged to 
throw up the case rather than meet it. 

Then, again, the Committee propose to amend Sec- 
tion 1 by requiring that the whole Board shall be 
present when its decision is rendered. As the sec- 
tion stands now, it is only required that " the ma- 
jority of the Presbyters shall be of opinion that 
there is no hope," etc. 

Previous to that we have introduced an amend- 
ment that the whole Board shall be present at the 
final decision. 

Rev. Dr. H4LL, of Long Island. Is it required 
that the whole Board shall hear the evidence ? 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. No. 
That was not before the Committee, and it was sug- 
gested only after the Committee made their last 
report, and the matter went on the Calendar. The 
Committee also propose to insert in that section a 

Erovision by which this Board of Reference shall 
e enabled to mediate between the parties, and if 
possible, settle the case w^ithout a dissolution of the 
connection. If, however, they find that to be im- 
possible, if all being present, when the finding is 
gi , en, a majority shall be of opinion that there is 
no hope of a favorable termination of the 
controversy, that a dissolution is necessary ; then 
they shall recommend, etc., as the Canon goes on to 
state. Only that in the second section they may 
provide for the settlement of outstanding pecu- 
niary claims, which may exist between the parties. 
A case was brought to the knowledge of the Com- 
mittee in which there were large arrears, and still 
the vestry insisted on cutting the tie, leaving the 
clergyman to get his money as best he could. We 
thought it was right to provide for that in the final 
action of the Board of Enquiry. 

The Committee also propose to amend Section 3, 
but that amendment came up in their previous re- 
port. The Board having made their recommenda- 
tion to the Bishop, if the rector or assistant minis- 
ter shall refuse to comply with the requirement of 
the Bishop made in pursuance of this recommenda- 
tion, then the Bishop shall proceed to forbid him the 
exercise of his ministerial functions, and if he per- 
sists in his refusal, then to sever the connection be- 
tween him and his parish. The Committee ha,ve en- 
deavored to ameliorate the Canon in the interest of 
justice in every direction. As to the matter referred 
to by the Deputy from Long Island, it was not 
brought up until the report was made. 

The PRESIDENT. The hour has arrived for 
going into the election of a Missionary Bishop, under 
the message from the House of Bishops. 

The doors having been closed, the House pro- 
ceeded to consider the nomination of a Missionary 
Bishop for New Mexico and Arizona. On the elec- 



tion of Rev. Mr. Adams, of Louisiana, when the 
doors were opened, the result was announced as fol- 
lows : 

Clerical Vote— 38 Dioceses, all in the affirma- 
tive. 

Lay Vote— 26 Dioceses, 26 votes, none in the 
negative. 

NEW LECTIONARY. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I beg leave to 
submit the following report from the Committee on 
Conference regarding the Lectionary : 

" The Committee of Conference on the disagree- 
ment of the two Houses on the subject of the Lec- 
tionary, recommend the adoption of the following 
resolution : 

"Resolved, That the following be proposed as an 
amendment by way of addition to the Eighth Ar- 
ticle of the Constitution, to wit : 

"Provided, however, that the General Conven- 
tion shall have power from time to time to amend 
the Lectionary, but no act for this purpose shall be 
valid which is not voted for by a majority of the 
whole number of Bishops entitled to seats in the 
House of Bishops, and by a majority of all the dio- 
ceses entitled to representation in the House of Dep- 
uties. 

" Resolved, That the Secretary of the House of 
Deputies cause the foregoing proposed amendment 
to the Constitution to be made known to the several 
Dioceses, according to the Constitution and Canons 
of the Church. 

"ALEXANDER GREGG, 
" Chairman of the Committee on the part of 
the House of Bishops. 

"ALFRED B. BEACH, 
"Chairman of the Committee on the part of 
the House of Deputies." 

Mr. SMITH, of South CaroUna. Is not that ex- 
actly what we voted against a little while ago? 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. The 
words are " to amend the Lectionary. " That means 
the present Lectionary. Would that permit the 
addition of a Lectionary specially for Lent? Could 
we do it under the Constitution? 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. If lam not mis- 
taken, the point was made a httle while ago in this 
House, that this gave to the Convention the right 
at each session, provided it passed by a majority, to 
alter or change the order of lessons. That point re- 
mains, and I only bring to the notice of the House 
whether they intend to recede from the position 
they then took. 

Mr. DE ROSSET, of North Carolina. I am ut- 
terly opposed to this measure, and I shall be very 
sorry if it is adopted. It provides for the altera- 
tion of the Book of Common Prayer so far as the Lec- 
tionary is concerned, and I call for a vote by Or- 
ders on the question. 

The PRESIDENT. There was another matter 
before us, and this could only come up, I think, by 
general consent, and be passed upon. If it is to be 
argued, and the vote taken by Dioceses and Orders, 
we must go back to the business which was inter- 
rupted by the election of a Missionary Bishop. 

Rev. Dr. PULTON, of Alabama. I trust that 
general consent will be given to carry this on, be- 
cause I am sure now it will be rather quiet, and 
when brought up a third time it will begin to be 
wearisome to the House. If I may go on, I will an- 
swer the question just put to the gentlemen on the 
Committee on Conference. 

Rev. Mr. MARPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
move a suspension of the order of business to dis- 
pose of this matter. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to suspend the 
order of business before the House when we went 



mi 



into secret session, in order to take up the report of 
the Committee of Conference on the Lectionary. 
The motion was agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. FULTON", of Alabama. Mr. President, 
I do not wisli to occupy the Convention more than 
a very few moments, and I trust that I shall be able, 
if I can make myself heard, to remove from a part, 
at least, the difficulties that are pressed on the 
minds of some of our friends. The reason why it 
was felt by the Committee of Conference — and they 
reported unanimously — that this was the best 
method to proceed was, first, because a revision 
of our Lectionary is almost or quite universally felt 
to be a necessary thing; and, secondly, because 
necessary though it be, it was also felt to be an ex- 
ceedingly difficult thing. It is almost impossible for 
scholars and gentlemen in their studies to furnish a 
Lectionary for the Christian year. It may all seem 
very beautiful and profitable to the student, but 
when it comes to be used actually in practical life, 
it may not prove to be quite so edifying to the con- 
gregations and people. Therefore, it will be neces- 
sary, in order to the final adoption of a Lectionary, 
that there should be a tentative process, 
a trial of what we do, in order that 
we may be able to discover whether it 
will be as perfect in practice as it has been sup- 
posed to be in theory. Now, it would be a very un- 
desirable thing if in this tentative process and to its 
success it should become necessary every three 
years to change the Constitution or to change the 
Book of Common Prayer. This would gravitate us 
into a bad habit. 

In other words, if we were to take the resolution 
which we passed to-day, and to which the 
House of Bishops disagreed, the result would 
be, that we would three years hence have 
a Lectionary, and then because in some par- 
ticular it was not felt to be all that we desired, we 
should take another three years to change the Lec- 
tionary, and so three years aftei^wards, and so on, 
and we should be perpetually at work on the Lec- 
tionary by a constitutional process. 

The Committee on the part of the House of Bish- 
ops felt that with the safeguards thrown around 
this matter, requiring not merely a majority of the 
House of Bishops but a majority of the Bishops en- 
titled to seats in that House, including the Foreign 
Missionary Bishops, the Domestic Missionary Bish- 
ops, the Bishops who were actually assem- 
bled, and the Bishops who may from 
sickness or otherwise be absent, and re- 
quiring also a majoiity of this House, voting by 
orders, for any change, even of a single chapter or 
a single verse, that every safeguard was thrown 
around it that could possibly be desired. I shall 
not advocate the measure further. To my own 
mind it appears to be exceedingly necessary, exceed- 
ingly conservative, not at all radical, and not in the 
least bit improper. 

Another thing I would say. If the matter should 
be barred entirely by stopping this, we are between 
two dangers, Scylla and Charybdis. On the one 
hand there are Bishops and there are clergymen 
who will authorize Lectiouaries and changes any- 
how. Then again, there are Bishops and there are 
clergymen who will change nothing. Now, better 
that we have a regular, law-ful constitutional pro- 
cess, so carefully guarded that no man can go far 
wrong, and yet liberal enough to discountenance 
every infraction of law, than to stand stock-still, 
and do nothing, and bring in danger to that which 
now exists. 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. May I ask 
the gentleman a question ? I do not clearly under- 
stand his proposition. Does he mean that this Lec- 
tionary, as proposed, is to be submitted to the Dio- 



j ceses, with the privilege of the parochial clergy to 
use it in the interim f 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. No, sir. 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. That is 
what I wanted to know. Then, do you mean that 
we are to arrive at this conclusion by constitu- 
tional amendment, instead of going to the Prayer- 
Book ? 

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. What we mean 
is this : That if this constitutional amendment is 
proposed to the Dioceses, and the Dioceses consent 
i to it, and show their consent by the vote of the next 
1 General Convention, then the next General Conven- 
! tion will be free to adopt this Lectionary proposed 
to them or any other. 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. By a change 
in the Constitution ? 
Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. No, sii' ; this 
I change of the Constitution will bring the control of 
j the Lectionary within the power of a constitutional 
; majority of both Houses. 

Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. By Canon, 
I then? 

\ Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Certainly. 

I Rev. Mr. GIRAULT, of Louisiana. That seems 

I to me to be irregular. 

I Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. If 
we do not do this we lose the Lent Lectionary. 
Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. We lose the 
\ Lent Lectionary for the next three years, and every 

Canon for six years to come. 
I Rev. Dr. SMEDES, of North Carolina. I have 
! but a word to say. I have great respect for the 
i opinion of gentlemen who are opposq^ to this mea- 
sure upon constitutional grounds, and I want to 
hear from them their reasons. I am in favor of this 
as at present advised, and at the same time I shall 
i vote with great reluctance against their convic- 
'\ tions, and I should like to hear from them why they 
j are opposed to it. 

I Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. For 
j one, I am very strongly opposed to it on the ground 
1 that it is bringing a change into the Prayer-Book 
j by a side-wind. Is the Lectionary, or is it not, a 
part of the Prayer-Book to-day k If it be, we can 
only change it by a certain process provided in the 
Constitution. If it be not, we can change it by a 
I momentary vote. If this is done, I should like to 
know what is to prevent our ruhng out the Ordinal. 
Rule out the Ordinal by a change in the Constitu- 
tion, and henceforth the Ordinal is to be considered 
; a part of the Prayer-Book, and yet we can change 

it in a different way from the Prayer-Book. 
I Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The objection 
I have to it is this : the House of Bishops sent us 
I down a message, in which they made a provisional 
i arrangement to go mto effect immediately. We 
I came to the conclusion, as we must come, that such 
an arrangement was unconstitutional. We then 
adopted, upon the motion of the Clerical Deputy 
from New York, a Lectionary to go into force 
if approved, three years hence. We sent 
I that to the House of Bishops with a Committee of 
i Conference. They have met together and brought 
j us back something entirely different, which we did 
not commit to them, and it seems to me to be a 
: stretch upon the part of a Committee of Conference 
! to bring back an entirely different proposition than 
\ those upon which the two Houses differed. That is 
I one objection to it. 

The other objection to it is that it does put the 
Lectionary of the Church within the control of a 
I General Convention, It might come before them at 
' the very last day, as in our case now, and they 
[ might upset entirely that Lectionary to which we 
j have all become attached. If it was simply 
to give the General Convention the power to 
I do this for one time, it might be very 



395 



different. I might be willing to leave 
it to the next General Convention, but I do not wish 
to make such a change in the Constitution as will 
place the Lectionary foi- all time to come imder the 
control of any General Convention which may be, 
and which may unadvisedly, without deliberation, 
and in a thin House, upset entirely the Lectionary 
we have, and give us another altogether different. 

But, if it were necessary, I think I could raise an 
appeal to gentlemen here, familiar with parliamen- 
tary law, whether this report can be received as the 
report of a Committee of Conference ; whether a 
Committee of this kind can introduce, as a matter 
of conference, a thing which was not between the 
two Houses as a matter of difference when they 
were sent out to concur. 

And if you will permit me one thing more, I do 
not think we ought to be forced into the adoption of 
a measure which we do not approve, simply 
because a Committee of Conference have in- 
troduced it, and we are told if we do not take this 
we shall get nothing. We can wait and send it 
back to another Committee of Conference, and see 
whether the House of Bishops and our House can- 
not agree on the only point of difference between 
us, which is, whether we should provide a Lection- 
ary now tentatively, which we do not believe we 
have a right to do, or adopt one and let it lie for 
three years, and then adopt it as a law. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I wish to say 
that I signed that report simply because it was a 
report of what actually occurred. I still believe 
that my plan for reaching this matter is the only 
constitutional one, and the only proper one. The 
Bishops think that they have authority now to ap- 
point a Lectionary to be used in Lent, and the only 
particular in which I would be willing to consent 
to this proposition is that it is tentative undoubtedly. 
We may hereafter find that there has been a selection 
of some one chapter which we would wish to change. 

That may be the result of the experience we shall 
get through the actual use of the Lectionary. If 
that should be the case, it is tme, I imagine, "tihat we 
could not make that change without going through 
this whole process, which lasts three years. That is 
the only objection I see, and that is the only reason 
that will weigh with me to consent to this propo- 
sition, I close, as I began, by saying that I think 
my substitute for the resolutions which came to 
us from the House of Bishops is the only constitu- 
tional and proper way of reaching this matter. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I regard this matter 
in this way, that it may happen that there may be 
one chapter, or two chapters, that may not com- 
mend themselves to the people generally. The body 
of the Lectionary may be right, and those minor 
amendments might be made at a future time. I 
think we are going upon dangei'ous ground to de- 
cide in this matter at this late hour, with the thin 
House we have, the delegations not full by any 
means, and arguing upon a measure to which we 
cannot give deliberate consideration. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
Mr. President, if I read our Book of Common 
Prayer aright, it contemplates that we shall have 
daily services in the Church, and the prescribed 
order for prayer is for Daily Morning and Evening 
Services. I submit that the lessons for the daily 
prayer morning and evening have been made without 
examination at all, or without that judgment which 
the Church requires to instruct its people. I have 
had my family in Church at times when lessons 
were read which I knew if intelligent examination 
had been given to them never would have been 
read. I have known members of this House who, 
when those lessons would come in the order 
of daily services, would never read them ; and will 
this Convention stand here and refuse to give this 



Convention power to change a Lectionary which 
the Presbyters, in violation of the Rubrics, daily 
disdain ? 

Mr. President, there is a crying evil here, and it 
is a subject so large, so complex, and of such details, 
that it is impossible to take hold of it in the form of 
a constitutional amendment. A constitutional 
amendment, you understand, is so rigid that what- 
ever we adopt in this House must literally be 
adopted in the same words at the next Convention, 
not a syllable to be changed, not a variation to be 
made, and if a single word is changed in the consti- 
tutional amendment agreed to by this House 
at the next General Convention, it has 
to go over to the next Convention, and if the 
next Convention changes one word, it has to go to 
the next Convention, and the subject itself is of such 
a character that it is incapable of action through a 
constitutional amendment. I want to see the time 
come when we shall have daily services, and when 
it will be my privilege, as it is in other churches, to 
enter the house of God every morning, if you please, 
and there pray my morning prayer ; and I want to 
see a Lectionary provided suitable for the occa- 
sion. 

Nor are the Sunday Lessons without objection. 
The Sunday Lessons are divided by an arbitrary 
rule without intelligence or sense. As I have had 
occasion to remark., some of the most beautiful les- 
sons are spoiled. When the subject-matter is ap- 
pointed some other subject often happens to be in 
another part of the chapter which is wholly diverse, 
and the mind is thus taken off from the leading idea 
of the Lesson and the complete effect is lost. 

Now what harm or what danger can there be in 
leaving to this Convention and the next Conven- 
tion the action which is to take simply portions of 
the Scripture and prescribe them to be read ? It is 
simply the selection of Scriptures for the lessons 
prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, and I 
will say, if you pass this amendment and give the 
power to" the next General Convention, 
it will be impossible for the next Gen- 
eral Convention to frame a Lection- 
ary. At the next General Convention, 
all they could do would be to raise an intelligent 
commission, which in the interval of three years 
can revise a subject so large as the collection which 
will embrace the whole Canonical Scriptures as 
well as Apocrypha, for they are all to be read, as 
our Rubric says, in the course of the year. If 
we give this power to the next Con- 
vention, I repeat, it can only be acted 
upon by the Convention afterwards upon 
the report of an intelligent commission which will 
give the subject detailed examination, by which 
alone justice will be done. I hope for the relief of 
all of us, who wish to hear proper lessons read, you 
will pass this constitutional amendment. 

Mr. KING, of Long Island. Is this Lectionary 
proposed for all the days ? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. It 
is only for Lent ; not for daily services. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Western 
New York will please give way for the reception of 
messages from the House of Bishops. 

MESSAGES FROM THE BISHOPS. 

A message (No. 96), from the House of Bishops, 
announced that it had concurred in Message No. 97 
from the House of Deputies, as to the printing of 
the Canon on Church Music in all editions of the 
Hymnal; in Message No. 98, as to the typographi- 
i cal changes in the revised Hymnal ; Message No. 99, 
as to the use of the Morning Prayer, Litany, etc., 
independently. 

CONGREGATIONS OF A FOREIGN RACE. 

A message (No. 97) from the House of Bishops 



396 



announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That it is proposed to the several Dioceses to adopt 
the following additional article as an amendment, 
to wit: 

" Article 11. Congregations of foreign races, or 
worshipping in a foreign tongue, may be admitted 
into communion with this Church, organized by 
ministers of the Churcli, under such provisions for 
the conduct of their public worship as may from 
time to time be canonicall}^ made by the Gl-eneral 
Convention. " 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move the reference of 
that to the Committee on Constitutional Amend- 
ments. 

The PRESIDENT. It goes, then, without motion, 
unless objection be made. 

SHORTENED FORMS OP PRAYER. 

A message (No. 98 ) from the House of Bishops an- 
nounced that it had concurred in Message No. 82 
from the House of Deputies relating to the pro- 
posed amendment to Article 8 of the Constitution, 
with the exception of the last clause, to wit : the 
words "or may authorize the same to be done by 
any Diocese for its own use " (as to the G-eneraJ Con- 
vention providing by Canon for the arrangement 
and setting forth of shortened forms of services ). 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I move that 
we concur in the action of the House of Bishops. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. It is a question 
for that House whether we shall recede. 

The motion to concur was agreed to. 

THE LECTIONARY. 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I call for the 
reading of the Report of the Committee of Confer- 
ence of the matter of the Lectionary. Some of us 
were engaged in signing testimonials, and did not 
know what it was. 

The report was read. 

The PRESIDENT. This report is before the 
House. 

Mr.' MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
An objection is made that this is an alteration of 
the Book of Common Prayer. With the great re- 
spect I have for the reverend gentleman from 
Massachusetts, I am surprised to hear such an argu- 
ment from his intelligent mind. If I thoroughly 
apprehend that provision of the Constitution, it 
does not apply to the arrangement of the Lessons 
in their order for reading in the service, because 
the Book of Common Prayer, as regarded in a gen- 
eral sense, is a book of human composition, taken 
mainly from inspired sources, and the design of the 
constitutional amendment was, that we should not 
recognize any discretion of ours in changing that 
ancient form of words, which has come down to us, ■ 
many portions of it, from the earliest ages. 

But that principle, and the principle that you 
must ever keep sacred from alteration — the Text of 
the Book of Common Prayer — has no reference 
whatever, it seems to me, to altering chapters and 
divisions of the Scripture which shall be read in the 
Church. We do not want anything whatever to be 
altered but the order in which they shall be read, 
omitting, perhaps, portions of some chapters. The 
general Rubric on the subject of the Lectionary 
contemplates that some discretion is to be exer- 
cised on this subject, for it says they are 
arranged that the most of the Scriptures 
shall be read through in the course of the year, 
not the entire Scriptures. But the revision wants 
to be a httle more carefully made. Is not the sub- 
ject better divided than by the arbitrary divisions 
as now divided, and portions of it which are not 
adapted for general use omitted in the hearing of 
the congregation ? I repeat that this does not con- 



tradict the spirit of the Constitution which says 
that the Book of Common Praj^er shall not be alter- 
ed, and the mere general phrase, unless there be 
some particular application of the phrase, furnishes 
no argument to my mind. 

If I understand the gentleman from Pittsburgh 
[Mr. Burgwin], he objects to this measure because 
it comes to us in some improper form, or because he 
sees some technical objection in the matter of form. 
I hope that a measure of this importance will never 
go off on amere techm'cality. Let us look at the 
subject of it ; and I ask, will this House allow the 
General Convention of this Church to revise and set 
forth a Lectionary for the use of the Church strip- 
ped of all technicalities ? That is the simple ques- 
tion. Will thev do it or not ? 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. I 
should like to call the attention of the Deputy from 
Western New York to the following Rubric, which 
has the same binding force as any Rubric within the 
covers of this book. 

"And to know what Lessons shall be read every 
day, look for the day of the month in the Calendar 
following, and there ye shall find the chapters that 
shall be read for the Lessons, both at Morning and 
Evening Prayer. " 

I wish to say, and I call attention to this, and 
offer this proposition for a special purpose. The 
Italians have a proverb, "All roads lead to Rome," 
and I wish Deputies of this House to see how all 
roads lead to Rubrical revision. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. 
The gentleman will remember that the Calendar is 
changed by this House in the matter of the cycles 
continually of necessity, and this action only changes 
the Calendar — the Rubric is standing unaltered. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing 
to the report of the Committee on Conference. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I suggest that 
we wait until we hear from the House of Bishops. 

Mr. KINGr, of Long Island. Why shall we open 
the Constitution at this late hour of the session, 
when the House is not full ? 

Mr. DE ROSSETT, of North Carolma. I call for 
a vote by Orders. 

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. Will the Secre- 
tary call the vote on the report of the Committee of 
Conference ? 

The SECRETARY. I am waiting to be instruct- 
ed whether to call by individuals or Dioceses ? 
[Dioceses.] 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I think the 
individual names ought to be called in a matter of 
this importance. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will call the 
names. I think it important to make a re- 
mark before the House becomes further 
thinned, that the last vote by ballot showed that 
there were only twenty-six Dioceses represented in 
the lay vote. The lay members of the Convention 
ought not, therefore, unless they intend to dissolve 
this Convention by their own will, to leave the 
City without seeing that some member of the dele- 
gation remains and will remain. The roll will be 
called. 

The Rev. Mr. BAKE WELL, of Kansas. Some of 
us want to imderstand the form of the question. 
Will the Secretary please read the report again ? 

The PRESIDENT. The report of the Conference 
Committee will be read. 

The Secretary read the report and proceeded to 
call the roll. 

j During the taking of the vote, a message (No. 
! 99) was received from the House of Bishops, an- 
[ nouncing the adoption by that House of the fol- 
! lowing resolution : 

" Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
I That the following be proposed as an amendment 



397 



by way of addition to the 8th Article of the Consti- 
tution, to wit : 

" ' Provided, however, That the General Conven- 
tion shall have power from time to time to amend 
the Lectioiiary ; but no act for this purpose shall be 
valid which is not voted for by a majority of the 
whole number of Bishops entitled to seats in the 
House of Bishops, and by a majority of all the Dio- 
ceses entitled to representation in the House of 
Deputies. ' 

" Resolved, That the Secretary of the House of 
Deputies cause the foregoing proposed amendment 
of the Constitution to be made known to the several 
Dioceses, according to the Constitution and Canons 
of this Church," 

The call being concluded, the result was as fol- 
lows : 

Clerical Vote : Forty Dioceses represented : 
ayes 31, noes 8, divided 1. 

Lay Vote : Twenty-six Dioceses represented : 
ayes 32, noes 3, divided 1 . 

The PRESIDENT. The report is agreed to by 
both Orders, and I suggest that the Secretary have 
leave to record this vote as being upon the motion 
for concurrence with the Message No. 99 of the 
House of Bishops. It will simplify the Journal. 
The Chair hears no objection to that course, and it 
is so ordered. 

Mr. SHEFFE Y, of Virginia. I move that the Com- 
mittee who had under its charge this matter of the 
Lectionary be continued till the next session of the 
General Convention. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. BURGWm, of Pittsburgh. I suggest that 
the vote had better be taken on the concurrence 
with the House of Bishops, and then transfer the 
vote. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will direct that to 
be done, first putting the question on concurrence. 

The message of the House of Bishops was concur- 
red in. 

STATE OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I think the 
House had better understand from the Secretary 
how much work remains before them. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will report the 
amount of work. 

The SECRETARY. It will be quite necessary 
that we have a quorum here to-morrow, there be- 
ing, I think, nearly twenty important reports from 
the Committee on Canons to be acted upon either 
favorably or unfavorably, and undoubtedly there 
will be sent down from the House of Bishops some 
important action of their own. 

The PRESIDENT. The hour for adjournment 
having arrived, the House stands adjourned until 
to-morrow morning at nine o'clock. 



TWENTY-FOURTH DAY. 

Tuesday, November 3. 
The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at 
nine a.m. 

Morning Prayer was said to the end of the Psalter 
by Rev. William R. Huntington, d.d., of Massa- 
chusetts. The lessons were read by Rev. George D. 
Gillespie, of Michigan. The Creed and Prayers 
were said by Rev. A. Augustus Marple, of Central 
Pennsylvania. The Benediction was pronounced 
by the Rt. Rev. WUliam Croswell Doane, d.d., 
Bishop of Albany. 

The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read 
and approved. 

TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOP ADAMS. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I move that 
the Secretary be instructed to transmit to the House 



of Bishops the testimonials of the Bishop-elect of 
New Mexico and Arizona. 
The motion was agreed to. 

THE DAILY CHURCHMAN. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia, submitted the 
following resolution, which was agreed to : 

"Resolved, That the thanks of this House be 
tendered to Messrs. M. H. Mallory & Co. , for their 
very excellent daily reports of the proceedings of 
this House ; and that they be requested to make 
similar arrangements for reporting the next session 
of this body." 

CHURCH MUSIC. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, o!^ Massachusetts. In the 
Canon on the use of the Book of Common Prayer, 
it was provided for the division of the services so 
that at any time the Litany and the order for the 
administration of the Hol^^ Commxmion as distinct 
services might be used independently of other ser- 
vices. The Canon on Church Music provides that 
before and after morning and evening prayei-, or 
before and after the sermon, the songs, hymns, and 
anthems may be sung. It is thought by some, and 
especially by those who have a special interest in 
Church Music, that there should be added to that 
Canon M^ords which would provide for the singing 
of Psalms or songs before and after the Litany, or 
before and after the administration of the Holy 
Communion, as these may at any time be separate 
services. I would, therefore, propose the following : 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That the Canon of Church Music be amended by 
adding immediately after the words ' Morning and 
Evening Prayer ' these words, ' the Litany, or the 
Office of Holy Communion.' " 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVHN, of Wisconsin. Would 
that prevent the singing of a hymn during the 
Communion Service ? 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Not at 
all ; but it is intended to give this special permis- 
sion, which some think does not exist now. 

Rev. Mr. JOHNSON, of Connecticut. The Of- 
fertory should be included also. 

Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. This is very 
important. A practice is growing up in the Chui eh 
in reference to the Offertory; but I have my doubts 
and misgivings about it, and I should like this 
amendment to have the sanction of a committee, 
before we act on it. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Marsachusetts. The 
amendment strikes me as being a much 
graver suggestion than that contained in the 
resolution of my colleague from Massachusetts. 
And I hope the resolution will not be pressed in so 
thin a House. The presentation of alms being a 
distinctive Ritual act, any additional provision 
would seem properly to come under the head of 
Rubrical directions. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Perhaps 
I had better read the resolution again : 

"Resolved, That the Canon of Church Music be 
amended by adding immediately after the words 
' Morning and Evening Prayer ' these words, ' the 
Litany, or the office of the Holv Communion. ' " 

The PRESIDENT. What is the object of that ? 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. We have 
already passed a resolution whereby we permit the 
Lord's Supper to be administered separately by 
itself, and the Litany said by itself. This is merely 
to provide for singing before and after each, which 
we should do without a Canon, but had better do 
with it. The object is to secure permission to sing 
before the Litany and after the Litany, especially 
when that is used as a separate service. After this 
Canon was passed yesterday there was passed a res- 
olution to this effect : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 



398 



That in the sense of this Convention nothing in the 

present order of the Book of Common Prayer pro- 
hibits the separation, when desirable, of the Morr- 
ing Prayer, the Litany and the Order for the Ad- 
ministration of the Lord's Supper into distinct ser- 
vices, which may be used independent of each other, 
and either of them without the other." 

If we use either of these services independently, 
we have no provision for singing in connection with 
them. It is proposed, then, to add these simple words, 
and say that whenever these services are used in- 
dependently, and even when they are not used inde- 
pendently, a clergyman may feel authorized to give 
out psalms or hymns to be sung just preceding them 
or just following them, thus making a variety in the 
service, and dividing the different parts of the 
service one from the other. It is a very simple and 
harmless thing. 

Mr. B ARTHOLOVf , of Kansas. I ask if this will 
add to or prolong the service? 

Rev. Dr. BUROESS, of Massachusetts. It pro- 
longs the service to the extent of so much singing. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I hope the 
Convention wiU not make the amendment. It 
seems to me to be doing by Canon what, if we have 
the power to do, really belongs to the Rubrics. I 
think custom gradually settles that matter, that 
they do it without raising that question. It is a 
Canon of common sense that does this. If you be- 
gin the service, then of course your Rubrics 
bind you. I think most clergymen are in 
the habit of considering that the service 
has not begun until they have actually 
started upon the Prayer-Book. I suppose that in a 
service beginning with the Litany, a hymn may 
come in by the Canon of common sense ; but if you 
begin to act by Canon and begin to make a quasi 
Rubric by a Canon, you are on dangerous ground. 
I think if our brethren's consciences are troubled, 
we may regret it, and commend them to considera- 
tion in some other way. But the question which was 
raised with regard to the Offertory, I think, is perti- 
nent. If you can, by a half canonical course, give 
a sort of Rubric at the beginning of the 
Litany, that here a hymn may be 
sung by Canon, though the Rubric says 
nothing of it, I do not know why you cannot then 
consider the question. That strikes me as quite un- 
constitutional to put in anywhere in the service per- 
mission to sing by Canon. In the offering of alms 
it is becoming the custom — a custom I do not quite 
fancy — ^to offer a chant or a hymn, or something. 
In the same way it has got to be the custom in a 
large number of congregations to chant an anthem 
during the Offertory. Custom probably will settle 
itself in the future and the Rubrics be modified in 
some way. But I do not think you can reach a dif- 
ficulty of this kind by a Canon, and I 
think we had better let the matter 
stand as it is rather than open this question now. 
We have a very thin House — it is very late in the 
session — and I know that a great many clergymen 
have a good deal of feeling about the matter one 
way and the other. I think the thing would be far 
safer left as it is. If there be any evil, or doubt, or 
mistake, let us leave it at the present, and take it up 
at an early part of another session, and bring it in 
with the matter of Rubrical examination, which 
will probably come in due time ; but I think it 
would be rather hasty legislation now, and certainly 
trench on a question that is a little dangerous. You 
cannot by Canon make something come in the ser- 
vice, you must do it by Rubric. Why undertake to 
say there may be a hymn at the beginning and the 
end ? I think we have a right to do that anyhow, 
without any Canon or any Rubric ; but when you 
come to touch the Offertory, and say that anything 
may be done there, it seems to me then you are plainly 



' interfering with the Prayer-Book, and putting in 
something that was not there. Yesterday we were 
doubtful about the musical sign of a colon as not to 
be put in without the constitutional process, and I 
j think we had better keep clear of this, 
j Mr. BARTHOLOW, of Kansas. I move to lay 

the resolution on the table, 
j Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I would 
prefer to withdraw it rather than to have it laid on 
j the table. I perceive the force of the remarks made 
[ by the Clerical Deputy from Long Island, but I sup- 
I posed the Canon had already overridden the mat- 
I ter, and that the Canon in giving permission to sing 
! before and after sermons had already introduced 
this practical Rubric that he speaks of. If that is 
not the case, I certainly do not wish to introduce 
any such Rubric in an improper way. I have pre- 
sented the resolution at the request of various mem- 
bers of the Convention, not entirely on my own be- 
half. 

The PRESIDENT. Is the resolution withdrawn ? 
Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. No; I 
will let it be laid on the lable if that is thought best. 
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I ask 
if the business under consideration yesterday with 
reference to the Canon about the dissolution of the 
connection between ministers and their parishes 
may not come up at this moment ? 

The PRESIDENT. Just as weU as any other 
time. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Why not take up the 
Calendar in its order ? 

The PRESIDENT. The Canon referred to was 
made a special order. It is now before the House. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts, I would 
call the attention of the Convention to this Canon 
for a few moments. It is a matter that came before 
the Convention at the request of the Diocese of 
Massachusetts, and not at my request, and yet it is 
a matter in which I feel a very deep interest. My 
whole heart is in it, and I am anxious that 
something should be done. It is the Canon 
on the dissolution of a pastoral connection. 
The Committee on Canons have already 
reported some amendments to this Canon which are 
great improvements to it, I confess, and I should be 
very glad to see them passed, if nothing better can 
be done. But the proposition which I have to make 
is to strike out and repeal the first five sections of 
the Canon, thus taking away all its objectionable 
features. This Canon now is a union of two Canons 
which existed before 1859. One of them constitutes 
the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Sections of this 
Canon. To that I have no objection whatever. 
The other was another Canon on the same subject, 
though with a different title, " the Dissolution of a 
Pastoral Connection," and that constitutes the first 
five sections of this Canon. 

This last Canon is the objectionable one. It was 
passed substantially originally in the year 1804, to 
provide for the case of Dr. Ogden, between whom 
and Trinity parish, in Newark, there existed a dif- 
ference, which it was thought could not be settled 
except by general Canon. It continued on the roll 
of Canons until 1859 ; and then when we were in 
Richmond — and all honor I say to old Virginia for 
this — when its air was about us, we came to the con- 
clusion to repeal this Canon, and struck it out. 
For over twelve years we remained without it, and 
it appeared again in 1871. 

Almost everybody here will say it is late in the 
session. It is late, indeed. We spent half a month 
nearly in doing justice to those who were elected 
to the Episcopate, or in endeavoring to do so. I 
ask you now to spend at least half an hour in en- 



399 



deavoring to do justice to the large body of Pres- 
bj-ters, for it is simply justice and fairness to them 
that we ask in proposing the repeal of these sec- 
tions. 

Brethren may say it is the last day of the session. 
I reply to them, This Canon was passed on the last 
day of the session of 1871, and not only was passed, 
but almost every word which was said in reference 
to it — indeed, everything except what took place in 
the Committee on Canons, was upon the last day of 
that session, if I am not mistaken. The original 
Canon seemed to be called for by a necessity in a 
case, as I said, occurring in New Jersey, in the year 
1804. I know not what necessity demanded the re- 
enactment in 1871. It was buried in 1859. We 
thought it was buried beyond any resurrection, and 
that it would not appear again ; but — ^to adapt to 
my wants a stanza of one of the old English 
ditties — 

' ' When summer suns had ceased to shine, 
And leaves began to fall, 
John Barleycorn came up again, 
And sore annoyed us all." 

There are good reasons for the repeal of these 
first five sections. I wish to give four or five of 
those reasons, and I will give them in almost as 
many words. You will notice that my opposition 
is to the principle of the Canon, not to the details. 
The first reason is, that that principle is opposed to 
the spirit and policy of the Church. Bishop White 
said concerning this Canon, after it was adopted in 
1804: 

"The Canon deserves the name of a necessary 
evil, and it is hoped it will prove to be but a tem- 
porary evil." 

And afterward he wrote : 

" That there seems to be no reason hke this stated 
in the Canon why there should be a severance of the 
pastoral relations. It should not take place except 
as the result of trial for alleged misconduct. " 

The Church became so convinced that it was 
against the spirit and policy of the Church, that in 
1808 there was added to one of the Canons — not to 
this portion, but to the other portion — these words : 

"The Chm'ch designs not to express approbation 
of any laws which make the status of a minister 
dependent upon anything else than his own sound- 
ness in tlie faith, or good conduct. " 

And then goes on to add that it is hoped soon all 
these measures would be repealed, a hope which I 
have shown you was realized in 1859. Now, let us 
not have a Canon unless there is a very absolute 
necessity which needs this constant apology and 
explanation of it. What apology or explanation 
ought to be given to a wrong principle, or a princi- 
ple that is doubtful or uncertain ? It is better to 
aboUsh the principle. It is only with reference to 
details that explanation ought to be admitted in our 
Canons. 

The second objection which I have to make is that 
it adds another way of making easier the severance 
of the pastoral relation. It is easy enough now, too 
easy, far too easy. I recollect an anecdote which 
Bishop Whitehouse, of Illinois, used to tell with 
great humor, concerning the late Rev. Dr. Berrian, 
for a long time Rector of Trinity Church, how he 
came one morning into his study, and found him 
apparently a little annoyed. Dr. Berrian 
told him that he had been visited by a clergy- 
man who was anxious to obtain a new 
situation, and wished him to reconnnend him 
to one. He then added, " I do not see, doctor, what 
clergymen mean by desiring constantly to make 
these changes. Why, I never thought of such a thing 
as resigning my parish." [Laughter.] There are 
very few parishes like Trinity Church. There are 
very few parishes which are like old Etna, covered 



with its vines and its richness from the very base to 
the top, and under which the giant of discontent 
slumbers and will slumber year after year without 
making any rolling or any noise whatever. Almost 
all our parishes are rather like Stromboli, constantly 
casting out their objectionable things, and fre- 
quently with these casting out their pastors. 
! But I put it to my brethren, if with that Canon, 
I institution has not become almost a farce, if a foun- 
dation upon the hope of close and endearing ties of 
affection bomid by years of prosperity and adversity 
has not become a vain thing when we learn from 
statistics lately that three years is the average of 
the continuance now of the relation between a pastor 
and his people. Only three years ! Only the time 
of the itinerant ministry of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church! 

The third objection is that this Canon invites 
division, invites the changing of smaU difficulties 
into those of which there is no hope of settlement. 
You will mark the language of the first words of 
the Canon : 

" In case of a controversy between any Rector or 
Assistant Minister of any church or parish, and 
vestry or congregation, which cannot be settled by 
themselves. " 

It seems almost to put a premium upon the effort 
to make a controversy which rose in a simple thing; 
rose in a shght disagreement between some vestry- 
men and the rector; rose in some little rumor or 
some little scandal in the parish; rose in their being 
a few pews less at Easter let than there were at the 
preceding Easter, or m the failure of some contribu- 
tion during the year, matters exceedingly trivial 
and unfit to touch this great point. I say these are 
the matters which, by means of this Canon, seem to 
be blown into great evils until they burn up aU 
those chords which unite together the rector and his 
people. 

The fourth objection is that the Canon of 1871 
has worked badly, and upon this point the Clerical 
Deputy from Wisconsin will tell you how the late 
honored Bishop of that Diocese declared that he 
would never have any action, if he could prevent it, 
under this Canon, because it did work so badly. I 
have looked over almost all the cases of which I 
have heard, and I do not know of a single case in 
which any good seems to have come to any parish 
or to anybody else by this endeavor, unless it be 
the printers who have published large volumes of 
correspondence and arguments upon it. 

The fifth point is that it is unnecessary. From 
1859 to 1871, twelve years, we went on without this 
part of the Canon only with the closing part, which 
I then existed as a Canon separate by itself, and the 
j appeal in that case was to the Bishop, and the 
i Bishop, by his personal endeavors, brought about a 
I reconciliation, if possible, between the people and 
\ their minister ; and if that was not possible, his 
I separation took place. Action went on then far 
\ more peacefully, and with much better results in 
! most of the Dioceses. There were exceptions in 
some places, exceptions where ministers had pecu- 
i Uar tempers or where vestries had especial obsti- 
; nacy, but in most cases that Canon alone by itself 
j operated better than the two Canons united to- 
1 gether. 

j Now this Canon of 1871 is said to have been 
1 especially written and prepared for the Ritualists. 
' By the Canon on Ritual passed by the Convention, 
we have these Ritualists, if I may adopt the 
figure of the Isthmian games, actually in chan- 
cery, and it is not necessary now that we should 
have this Canon, or any other, so as to strike them 
at greater disadvantage. Now, for any larger cause 
than introducing some new custom, or some partic- 
■ ular color, or some slight Ritual into the service, 
I for any misconduct, for any heresy, for any false 



400 



speaking, for any immorality of any kind, we 
have the Canon for the trial of ministers. The 
causes which come up under the Canon under dis- 
cussion are far more trivial than most of the mem- 
bers of this House perhaps may be aware of. One 
of the most important of the trials, which have oc- 
curred under it, had no more foundation than this, 
that a church had been estabhshed as a Low Church 
— I use the terms now that were used in the trial — 
and the minister who had been settled 
proved to be rather a High Churchman 
— not a High Churchman even according 
to the old-fashioned High Church sta,udard, but "a 
rather High Churchman," and the people were not 
satisfied that their Church should be carried on in 
any different way from that on which it was 
started ; they must have it upon the foundation on 
which they built it. In addition to that, there was 
alleged that the congregation had fallen off, and 
that the collections had somewhat fallen off. Both 
of these small points proved upon the trial to be un- 
founded. 

The sixth reason for desiring the repeal of this 
portion of the Canon is that while it stands it is a 
hindrance to entrance to the ministry, and such a 
hindrance as ought not to be interposed. There are 
few men who will desire to enter a ministry in 
which the relations between pastor and people are 
not founded upon such principles that they can 
carry out independently their own consciences, and 
labor as for the Lord Jesus Christ himself, without 
danger of being consfcantly stopped or driven from 
their parishes. What is the condition of matters 
now, and what has it been for the last six years ^ 
About seventy added to the ministry in each year. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time 'is up. 

Rev. Dr. BURG-ESS, of Massachusetts. I move 
that the first five sections of this Canon be re- 
pealed. 

Rev. Dr. WESTON, of North Carolina. May I be 
allowed but a moment or so, not to debate the ques- 
tion, for I do not think we have time for that, but 
to call the attention of the Convention to two 
facts. In the first place, these are two Canons com- 
bined, as the Deputy from Massachusetts remarked, 
but their original object was different. One was 
for the dissolution simply of pastoral connection ; 
the other, for the adjustment of differences between 
ministers and their congregations. That is the rea- 
son why there are tvvo Canons combined. They 
have two separate objects. 

But in the second place, I should like the Conven- 
tion to observe, that by the Canon as proposed no 
Diocese is bound to be under this legislation. It is 
left to each Diocese to adopt its own legislation on 
this subject if it chooses. This merely provides 
something to put into the chasm if there be no Dio- 
cesan legislation on the subject. I understand the 
Deputy as approving all our amendments as far as 
they go. The simple question is, whether we shall 
have any legislation or not. I am told by a Deputy 
from another Diocese that when the repeal ot tiiis 
first part was made some years ago, immediate cause 
arose in that Diocese for the enactment of a Canon 
of their own. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. That was 
one point I intended to make : why not leave it to 
the Dioceses 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. When we re- 
pealed that Canon, as the gentleman says, the very 
moment it was repealed we found that we 
were obliged, in the Diocese of Georgia, to 
frame such a Canon; and why? Simply for the 
sake of peace. Within the past year, but for that 
Canon we should have had to have an ecclesiastical 
trial. That Canon saved the necessity of it. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Have you not 
a different Canon in Georgia from that? 



Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. Yes, we have 
our own Canon. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Then 
you do not want this? 
j Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I have no 
objection if you will let us have our own Canon. I 
only say we found the absolute necessity of such a 
Canon, for the sake of the peace of the Diocese. 
We have saved through this Canon ecclesiastical 
trials. Gentlemen may see larger difiiculties 
than I do, and may see the absolute 
necessity of repealing the present Canon; 
but all I say is, that in my own Diocese there is a 
necessity for some Canon, for the sake of the peace 
of the Church, and to prevent ecclesiastical trials. 
Several times within the period since this Canon 
was passed, a simple statement that thei e was a 
Canon on the subject has saved a trial. As to there 
being anything frivolous in these troubles as to 
clergymen, we have nothing of the sort in the Dio- 
cese of Georgia. We have simply used it in cases 
where ecclesiastical trials would have been a neces- 
sity, and this Canon enabled the matter to be 
adjusted satisfactorily to all parties, and saved 
clergymen absolutely to the Church. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I want to say 
a. few words in regard to this Canon that is now upon 
our Digest, Canon 4, of 1871, and I want to say it in 
the interest of my order. I will preface my re- 
marks with the declaration that my deceased 
Bishop, Bishop Arnutage, declared that this Canon 
was so eminently unfair that he would not use it in 
any shape or form. Let any Presbyter of this Con- 
vention go over this Canon, and he will see that the 
position of the trial is such that it can be made 
an instrument of tyranny over the Clergy of 
the Church in any Diocese by the very shape 
in which it is put, by the exceeding narrowness of 
the men who are judges, as we may caU them, or 
jury. Any clergyman of the Church may be got, 
as my distinguished friend from Massachusetts said, 
into chancery — ^not the chancery of the law, but the 
chancery of boxers, in which a man's head is under 
another man's arm, and his head is mashed to pieces. 
That is the chancery in which the Presbyter of the 
Church may be put by this Canon, as any man who 
will honestly look over it and see the way in which 
the jury is organized must admit. 

I have examined the Canon thoroughly. I have 
given the opinion of Bishop Armitage on the point. 
He desired to introduce the old Canon of 1832 in its 
stead. That old Canon of 1832 provides that the 
Bishop shall summon all the clergy of the Diocese, 
and then that body— a grand jury, we may say— as 
many of them as answer, make up their minds on 
the facts of the difference, and give a determina- 
tion, which determination shall be obeyed by the 
clergyman. I have sat upon a Court under the old 
Canon, and we did the thing well and honestly ; we 
separated the connection between the man and his 
congregation, and then we gave him eighteen hun- 
dred dollars as a bonus, and he took his eighteen 
hundred doUars and lett, and good was done. 

Now, if I can introduce this resolution, I will in- 
troduce it : to restore the Canon of 1832, and upon 
that Canon of 1832, I will say that Dr. Hoffman, 
in his Manual on Canon Law, which Manual was 
used on that trial, distinctly declares that it was 
Bishop White's opinion that, while the connection 
between a clergyman and his parish was indissoluble, 
nevertheless separation was a necessary evil which 
could not be avoided under certain circumstances; 
and this Canon 34, of 1832, was the best we could do 
under the circumstances of the case. 

We are nearly at the end of the session, but I 
think this thmg ought to come up. I think the 
clergy ought to understand their own interests suffi- 
ciently not to allow the Canon of 1871 to remain, 



401 



and I hope the next Convention will have the op- 
portunity of laying out the thing as it ought to be 
laid out. My resolution is : 

" Resolved, That Canon 4, Title II., of 1871, be re- 
ferred back to the Committee, with instructions to 
report the old Canon 34, of 1832 for adoption in- 
stead. " 

I think that will settle the matter. 

Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey. I ask 
if Dr. Adams has that Canon and will read it ? 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. The Secretary 
has a good deal better voice for this House than I 
have, and I ask him to read it. 

The SECRETARY read Canon 34, of 1832, as fol- 
lows : 

" In cases of controversy between ministers who 
now, or may hereafter, hold the rectorship of 
churches or parishes, and the vestry or congrega- 
tion of such chm-ches or parishes, which controver- 
sies are of such a nature as cannot be settled by 
themselves, the parties, or either of them, shall 
make application to the Bishop of the Diocese, or, 
in case there be no Bishop, to the Convention of the 
same. And if it appears to the Bishop and a ma- 
jority of the Presbyters, convened after a summons 
of the whole belonging to the Diocese, or, if there 
be no Bishop, to the Convention or the Standing 
Committee of the Diocese (if the authority should 
be committed to them by the Convention), that the 
controversy has proceeded to such lengths 
as to preclude all hope of its favorable termination, 
and that a dissolution of the connection which ex- 
ists between them is indispensably necessary to re- 
store the peace and promote the prosperity of the 
Church, the Bishop and his said Pi-esbyters, or if 
there be no Bishop, the Convention or the Standing 
Committee of the Diocese, if the authority should 
be committed to them by the Convention, shall re- 
commend to such ministers to relinquish their titles 
to their rectorship on such conditions as may ap- 
pear reasonable and proper to the Bishop and his 
said Presbyters ; or, if there be no Bishop, to the 
Convention or the Standing Committee of the Dio- 
cese, if the authority should be committed to them by 
the Convention. And if such rectors or congregations 
refuse to comply with such recommendation, the 
Bishop and his said Presbyters, or, if there be no 
Bishop, the Convention, or the Standing Committee 
of the Diocese, if the authority should be commit- 
ted to them by the Convention, with the aid and 
consent of a Bishop, may, at their discretion, pro- 
ceed, according to the Canons of the Church, to 
suspend the former from the exercise of any minis- 
terial duties within the Diocese, and prohibit the 
latter from a seat in the Convention until they re- 
tract such refusal, and submit to the terms of the 
recommendation; and any minister so suspended 
shall not be permitted, during his suspension, to ex- 
ercise any ministerial duties. This Canon shall ap- 
ply also to the cases of assistant ministers and their 
congregations." 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. Let me 
say that we tried that Canon in North Carolina 
some twenty years ago, and found it worked wifch 
so much inconvenience that we come very clearly 
to the determination never to try it again. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
would like to call the notice of the members of the 
House to the fact that under the Canon as it now 
stands, and much more under the Canon if amended 
as the Committee on Canons propose it should be, it 
is in the power of a factious and troublesome and 
very small minority in a parish at the beginning to 
inflict the very greatest injustice upon a clergyman. 
It may be possible that a rumor originating with 
only one or two persons touching a man's soxmd- 
ness in the faith or touching his own personal moral 
character, may be fanned to such an extent, to such 



size, that it shall create serious and great trouble in 
the parish; and by this Canon, instead of the 
clergyman having the guarantee of liis own repu- 
tation, which is afforded by a full trial, with all the 
safeguards thrown around the trial by our Canons 
as they stand, he is placed at the mercy of a hastily 
appointed Commission which has none of the 
powers or limitations with regard to the taking of 
testimony which are prescribed in the 
Canon with regard to an ecclesiastical 
trial; and upon the decision of that Com- 
mission, hastily appointed and without any of those 
guarantees or limitations that I have spoken of, he 
may be compelled either to abandon his rectorship 
or be silenced in the Diocese ; and if the amend- 
memt is adopted it is in the power of those opposed 
to him to press the matter still further and compel 
him to resign, or if he be unwilling to resign take 
from him even the civil rights that belong to his 
rectorship. It places him, therefore, actually in 
the power of mischief-makers, and it takes away, 
as I said, the guarantees \^hicn are given to his per- 
sonal rights in every court. It makes the Canon 
for the trial of clergymen almost a nullity. 

Rev. Mr. JOHNSON, of Connecticut. It seems to 
me that a more serious objecfcion than has yet been 
mentioned goes to the Canon as it now stands, 
and to the Canon of 1832, which it is proposed to 
adopt in its place, namely, that this court, if we 
may* call it such, is not by the letter of the Canon 
permitted to enter into the question of the right or 
wrong at issue between any rector or assistant 
minister and the parish, but it is confined to the 
simple question whether or not a dissolution of the 
connection between the rector or assistant minis- 
ter, and his parish or congregation, is necessary to 
restore the peace of the Church and promote its 
prosperity. It is very easy to conceive of parishes 
utterly in the wrong on the question at issue be- 
tween them and their rector, where the peace and 
prosperity of that parish do require the disso- 
lution of the relation between them and their Rec- 
tor, and, therefore, I claim that by the very letter 
of this Canon, even though the parish is' in the 
wrong, and the Rector is in the right, simply because 
this Court can take into consideration nothing, ex- 
cept what is likely to conduce to the peace and pros- 
perity of that parish, they must decide against the 
right, and in favor of the wrong. In 
other words, it is adopting in this Church that 
heathenish principle of policy and self- 
interest, instead of the Christian rule of 
right and justice. Precisely the same motive 
that led the early Church because its members were 
tired of persecution and were longing for prosperity 
to admit into its councils and to a seat at its head 
Constantine, an unbaptized heathen : and that act, 
which was performed in accordance with 
policy rather than in accordance with right and 
justice, has been a curse to the Church from that 
day to this. I say if we are to have any Canon 
whatever on this subject, I hope it will be one per- 
mitting a trial according to right and justice, and 
not according to policy. 

Rev. Mr. GILLESPIE, of Michigan. It is so late 
in the session that I hope the amendment proposed 
by the Deputy from Wisconsin may go to the Com- 
mittee on Canons, I certainly would be among the 
first to reject from our Code almost any Canon that 
would lead to a dissolution of pastoral connection, 
for I believe if there is any great evil under which 
this Church especially labors at present, it is the 
brevity of the pastoral connection. I know in one 
Diocese we celebrated the fact that one 
clergyman had been twenty-five years in 
a parish, which was something so extraordinary 
that his brethren came to congratulate him on 
the fact. But, sir, occasions will arise where, I 



402 



think, some Canon would be rather promotive of 
peace than otherwise. There are sometimes differ- 
ences between clergymen and their congregations 
which cannot be settled by the parties, where, very 
much to the advantage of both, some power from 
outside may step in to arrange the difficulty. I 
have before my mind such a case. It is very true 
we may have Diocesan Canons for such cases, but 
still a general Canon comes with more majesty, and 
has more respect. 

I do not suppose this House in its last hours will 
go very fully into the subject, but I hope the- pro- 
posed amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsiu 
may receive the attention of the Committee on 
Canons. 

Rev. Dr. BROWN, of Albany. Mr. President, I 
am opposed to this Canon; and yet it seems tome 
the safer way, at this late day of the session, would 
be to adopt the amendments of the Committee, 
which have been carefully thought out, and then 
remit the subject, if we can, to their further consid- 
eration, and at the next session of the General Con- 
vention sweep it away for ever. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. The amend- 
ments of the Committee do not touch the first sec- 
tion, and the first section is the worst in the whole 
Canon, and if gentlemen will only try their hands 
at a little ecclesiastical ciphering, they will see 
exactly what it means. The rector is to nominate 
three Presbyters, and the vestry are to nominate 
three Presbyters, and the Bishop nominates three 
Presbyters. If we look, first of all, at the penalties, 
we shall see that the congregation or the vestry 
risk the loss of nothing which they care for. As a 
general rule, our laity are not so anxious to attend 
the Diocesan Convention as to feel it a great depri- 
vation to be suspended from the privilege : our diffi- 
cultv is to get them to attend ; a,ud yet that is all 
that they risk the loss of. But the clergyman, if he 
does not accept this result, is to be suspended from 
aU exercise of ministerial function in the Diocese 
tmtil he submits and gives up his rights. That is 
not fair. 

The same unfairness runs throughout. Either 
party, we are told, may appeal to the Bishops. 
That looks very fair, but it is about as fair as the 
old alternation between the white man and the In- 
dian in regard to dividing their spoil. They had a 
buzzard and a turkey, and the white man said to the 
Indian: "I will take the turkey and you take the 
buzzard; or you may take the buzzard and I wiU take 
the turkey." That is the only alternative that is 
given. Who is likely to appeal to the Bishop in 
case of a rectoral difficulty ^ Is the Rector hkely 
to call in the Bishop ? By no means. He does not 
need any Bishop's aid to stay where he is, and that 
is all he wants. It is only the vestry that are likely 
to appeal, and the vestry are never likely to appeal 
excepting when they know that they are likely to 
have the sympathy of the Bishop ; and w^hen they 
risk nothing, whether they succeed in the appeal or 
whether they do not. 

When these nine are nominated— three by the rec- 
tor, three by the vestry, and three by the Bishop- 
then comes the ciphering. Each of the two parties 
to the contest has a right to knock off, one at a time, 
until the number is reduced to five. Of course, the 
vestry will knock off one of the rector's friends, and 
the rector will strike off one of the vestry's friends ; 
and so the operation is done a second time, until at 
the end the five are constituted. 

Thus there will be the three Bishop's Presbyters, 
one of the vestry's Presbyters, and one Presbyter 
representing the poor rector. So the Board is four 
against the rector — four to one to begin with— or, if 
the rector does not nominate three friends, the 
Bishop is to nominate for him, and then the Board 
will be five to none against the rector at the be- 



ginning. Then if he does not accept the sentence 
of that Board, he is suspended from all exercise of 
the ministry in that Diocese until he resigns his 
rights. It is a simple guillotine put into the hands 
of the Bishop to cut off the head of any rector who 
may happen to be in a temporary difficulty with his 
vestry, and that without giving a chance to go over 
another Easter, and see whether the majority of the 
congregation will not stand by the rector and put 
his friends in command of the vestry. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. Mr. President, I 
1 have had the necessity of witnessing some very 
1 serious experiences under this Canon ; but, before I 
j give you any of them, let me suggest to you that it 
j is possible, under the old Canon, or under the new one 
I as proposed, for anj^ parish in the world to get rid 
j of its rector, no matter what he does. It becomes 
I a question, at last, of merely whether it is for the 
peace of the Church. Any two men, or two wo- 
men, may get up such a clamor, kick up such a dust, 
to use a slang phi'ase, in three weeks, that it becomes 
perfectly evident to every body that it is for the peace 
of the Church that the relation should be dissolved, 
regardless of the right or the wrong. I have known 
a single instance of that kind, where the original ex- 
amination having failed technically at the next Con- 
vention of that Diocese, a gentleman came in and 
moved this resolution : 

"Resolved, That, be the clergyman right or 
wrong, it is his duty to go away." 

Had it not been a case where there was an error 
that the vestry concluded, on the whole, not to 
avail themselves of in the end, that man would 
have been compelled to go away. The circum- 
stances were substantially these : A gentleman be- 
tween fifty and sixty years old, who had been his 
whole life in the Church, who had built in one 
Diocese three churches, and partly with his own 
hands, who had built three rectories for his own 
residence, one of them entirely with his own hands, 
who had done as good work as any man in that 
Diocese, at last became obnoxious to two 
or three women. Through them and their hus- 
bands a trouble was created in the vestry and in 
their Church, and this Canon was brought into 
requisition. The man was summor ed to meet the 
triers some two hundred or three hundred miles 
away, as he had to go from where he lived, and he 
was then carried, by the way he had to go, one hun- 
dred and forty miles further. There was an inter- 
vention of the Standing Committee on the matter, 
and his rights were saved on the ground that he 
could not be there ; that there was no body of men 
that ever tried another so far away from his own 
vicinage ; that the venue was wrong. The Stand- 
ing Committee advised a settlement ; the minister 
was ready to accept it, but the vestry took 
umbrage. They had been thwarted. The man 
was left in the parish, and they said, " We will do 
nothing." Weil, that saved his rights. They owed 
him eight hundred dollars according to their own 
admission, five hundred dollars of which was money 
advanced in one building and three hundred dollars 
in another ; but they insisted that that man should 
be thrust out of their parish, when he had built 
their church, came to New York and raised one 
thousand five hundred dollars to furnish it, and had 
I done as good labor there as ever a man did : they 
I insisted that he should be thrust out of that parish 
regardless of what they owed him and regardless 
of all right, and they have driven him to support 
himself by his own hands, and to-day he is insane. 

I do not believe that the Canons of the Church 
ought to furnish material for the insane asylums, 
and I do not believe that there ever was a Canon 
that could be brought with such pressure to bear 
upon a clergyman since the Church had its begin- 
ning as the Canon under which we have been work- 



403 



ing for three years ; and although the one prop osed 
by the Committee is better, it is all wrong. There 
should be no bid towards trouble, and this is a bid 
towards trouble. Let me be a layman, 
and if I fall out with my clergyman, no 
matter how right he maybe or how wrong I may be, 
I can make it evident to any committee on the face 
of the earth in three weeks' time, being an active 
man and working in my parish among both sexes, 
among the old and the yoimg, that he should leave, 
and the Canon will send him away, and it will send 
him away often regardless of the right. I have 
seen one man, the best working man I ever saw in 
my life, set crazy by this process, and I hope never 
to see another. The old Canon brought up by Dr. 
Adams is very good, and I would prefer to go back 
to that. 

Rev. Mr. McILW-AIN, of Iowa. I am disposed 
to think, if we let this Canon remain as it is, it will 
do no harm, because these difficulties can easily be 
settled by a man leaving his T>lace, and if he is worth 
much he can easily get a good place. ISTow, if there 
be so many objections to this Canon as gentlemen 
urge, we certainly have no time to consider them. 
If there be found in it good points, as some gentle- 
men think, we can certainly Live under the Canon 
for three years longer. I therefore move that the 
whole subject be laid on the table. 

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. That leaves the 
old Canon with that pressure upon us. The new 
Canon is infinitely better. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the whole 
subject be laid on the table. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I should like to 
have the question taken on the repeal of the first five 
sections, and I wish to know what to do with my 
amendment. I propose to move that amendment in 
case these abomin ible sectioMS are not repealed. 

The PRESIDENT. You can withdraw your 
amendment for the present. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I withdraw my 
amendment for the present, but I hope the clergy 
and laity of this Church will repeal these five sec- 
tions so as to relieve us from this burden now. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion of Dr. Burgess, 
as I understand it, is to amend the report of the 
Committee by striking out all after the word "Re- 
solved," and inserting " that the fii'st five sections 
of the Canon of 1871 he repealed." 

Mr. COFFIN, of Pennsylvania. The delegation 
from Pennsylvania call for a vote by Dioceses and 
Orders. 

The PRESIDENT. Will not the gentleman allow 
the vote to be taken viva voce f Does the gentle- 
man insist on the call for Dioceses and Orders I 

Mr. COFFIN, of Pennsylvania. Yes, sir. 

The PRESIDENT. Then I hope the whole mat- 
ter will be laid upon the table. 

Mr. CASS, of Pittsburgh. I move to lay the whole 
matter on the table. There is not a large portion of 
the House present at this time, and I do not think 
we ought to legislate on such important 
questions with such a thin House. I un- 
derstand from the Secretary that there are fifteen 
or twenty matters on the Calendar to be acted on. 
T think they ought to be gone through with, such as 
can be readily disposed of. I move, therefore, that 
this be laid upon the table. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. Allow it 
to di^op without any action, or to remain as it is 
until the next Convention. I move that this subject 
be postponed until the next Convention, if the House 
prefers. 

Mr. CASS, of Pittsburgh. Very well ; I with- 
draw my motion. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I move 
to postpone it imtil the next General Convention. 

The motion was agreed to. 



EUCHARISTIC ADORATION. 

Mr. OTIS, of lUinois. Let us go on with the Cal- 
endar. 

The PRESIDENT. The Calendar is in order, and 
the Secretary will state the first business upon it. 

The SECRETARY. The first business on the 
Calendar is the resolutions offered by the Rev. Mr. 
Jennings respecting Eucharistical Adoration. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. Forasmuch 
as the House has already acted by its votes on the 
Rubrical Commission proposition in such a way as 
to indicate its wishes, I . desire to withdraw the se- 
cond and third resolutions. 

The PRESIDENT. Shall leave be granted to 
withdraw the second and third resolutions ? 

Leave was granted. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. Pnow beg per- 
mission to offer the following substitute for the first 
resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). That 
the following are hereby solemnly declared to be 
foreign to this Church, to wit : 

" 1. Such rites, ceremonies, and usages of Eucha- 
ristic adoration as proceed from the belief that Our 
Lord is present upon the Holy Table as the appoint- 
ed place of His presence in and under the forms of 
bread and wine, by virtue of the consecration of 
the elements, and is therein to be worshipped ; and 
that He is offered by the priest as a propitiatory 
sacrifice for the living and the dead. 

" 2. Ail teachings leading to the rites, ceremonies, 
and usages aforesaid." 

If I did n ot believe that this is th e general sentiment, 
when we come to get at it, of this body, I would not 
take your time ; but I scarcely can allow myself to 
believe that it will lead to very extensive discussion. 
We stand in a questionable attitude before the 
American people. The American people, I will not 
say distrust us, but they do stand in doubt, painfully 
to themselves, damagingly to us, because there 
are Romish usages symbolizing the exist- 
ence in the Church of Romish doctrines. 
This America,n people will never consent 
that any of the Protestant Communions 
shall lead them to the Vatican; this American 
people will never consent to throw themselves into 
the embrace of the old man of the Tiber; and we 
owe it, brethren, to our noble Church to put her in 
a proper position before the American people. We 
know where we stand; we loiow that these are not 
our rites, ceremonies, and usages; we know that 
the doctrines symbolized thereby are not the doc- 
trines of this Church ; but the people do not know 
it, and I tell you that one of the most formidable 
difficulties that the Presbyters of the Church have 
to meet in the West, South, and Southwest, in the 
propagation of the faith, is just this very thing that 
we find the people stand in doubt of us, as to our 
loyalty to the principles of the Reformation and of 
the fathers of the English Church. 

I am credibly informed that in a city which shaU 
be nameless, last Lent, a gentleman went into one 
of our churches, and there found three 
ministers almost choking up the doorway, 
kneeling upon the pavement in the pres- 
ence of a picture— in silent devotion, 
viewing a picture of our Lord. After a while they 
wandered along on their knees to the presence of 
another pictm'e — the seven stations of the cross, 
mind you. Astonished, this churchman went away, 
and went to another church in the same city ; and 
lo ! over the doors of that church he read, with still 
greater pain and astonishment, if possible, "Madame 
Jarley's Waxworks on exhibition for the benefit of 
the Church." [Laughter.] He came to this conclu- 
sion : " This is a broad Church ; this is an all-com- 
prehensive Church." 

Now what I want is a simple declaration like this, 



404 



that will show, as we have already shown by our 
baptismal action, that we rule out Madame Jarley 
on the one side, that we exclude such exhibitions on 
the one side, and say, this Church will pronounce 
foreign to herself all exhibitions of the Scarlet Wo- 
man on the other. 
[Here the hammer fell.] 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, "of Massachusetts. I move 
that five minutes more be granted. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. The matter 
has been a long time on the Calendar, and if the 
House is willing to say what our Protestant faith is, 
very well, and if the House regards its past action 
as SLifBciently significant, I have nothing more to 
say. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. I move to lay 
the whole subject on the table. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I hope the 
House will not take this course. The resolution 
had better be withdrawn rather than laid on the 
table. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. Let us 
meet it squarely. If it is simply miderstood that the 
House decline to take action on this proposition 
because they consider their action upon the Rubrical 
commission upon baptismal regeneration, and upon 
the election of Bishop Seymour, sufiiciently signifi- 
cant, I will submit. 

The PRESIDENT. We cannot tell the motives. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. If we were all 
to give our reasons, it would take a long time. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. May I not be 
allowed to refer the matter to the next Convention ? 
'[No, No."] 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Es^cuse me. I 
have some right. I have moved to lay this resolu- 
tion on the table and I do not withdraw that mo- 
tion. I insist upon my right to have the question 
taken. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I hope the proposition 
will be withdrawn. It involves an important doc- 
trinal question ; and how can you have an ex- 
ression of opinion when there is Uot a full House 
ere ? 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. I discover 
from what is said that the f eehng is that the House 
has already taken sufiiciently significant action. 
Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the resolution. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I move that 
leave be granted. 

The motion was agreed to, and the resolution was 
withdrawn. 

PRAYER FOR AUTHORITIES. 

The next business on the Calendar was the resolu- 
tion offered by Mr. Cornwall, of Kentucky, relative 
to the Prayer for the President, etc. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I move that 
it be laid on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. Perhaps it would be better to 
refer it to the next General Convention. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN. I submit the motion that 
it be referred to the next General Convention. 

The motion was agreed to. 

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. 

The next business on the Calendar was the resolu- 
tion offered by Rev. Dr. Strihgf ellow, of Alabama, 
asking leave to withdraw certain papers in the 
keeping of the House. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN. The doctor is not 
here ; but I will, in his name, withdraw the resolu- 
tion. 

The PRESIDENT. If no objection be made, the 
resolution will be considered as withdrawn. 

CONVOCATION OF CANTERBURY. 

The next business on the Calendar was communi- 
cations from the Lower House of Convocation of the 



Province of Canterbury, England ; and the Secre- 
tary of the Venerable Society for the Propagation 
of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I offer the 
following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Secretary of this House be 
instructed to convey to the Rev. Dr. Frazer and the 
Prolocutor of the Lower House of Convocation the 
grateful recognition of their courtesy in transmit- 
ting copies of their official proceedings, and that he 
also forward to the proper officer of the Convoca- 
tion copies of our Journal and formal proceedings 
so far as may be in his power." 

The resolution was agreed to. 

SYNODS OF DIOCESES. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing resolution reported by the Committee on Canons. 

''Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
Canon "Authorizing the Formation of Synods of 
Dioceses." 

The resolution was agreed to. 

STATE OF THE CHURCH. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing resolution reported by the Committee on Canons. 

" Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). That 
Sections 4 and 5, of Canon 15, of Title I., be amend- 
ed so as to read as follows : 

" Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of 
the Convention of every Diocese, or of the person 
or persons with whom the Journals or other eccle- 
siastical papers are lodged, to forward to the House 
of Deputies at every General Convention, on or be- 
fore the first Monday of the session, the documents 
and papers specified in this Canon. 

"Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Bishop and 
Standing Committee of the Church in every Dio- 
cese, or, if there be no Bishop, of the Standing Com- 
mittee only, to prepare, previously to the meeting 
of every General Convention, a condensed report 
and a tabular view of the state of the Church in 
their Diocese, comprising therein a summary of the 
statistics from the parochial reports, and from the 
Bishop's addresses, specifying the capital and pro- 
ceeds of the Episcopal Fund, and of all Benevolent 
and Missionary associations of Churchmen within 
the Diocese, and present the same to the Secretary 
of the House of Deputies on or before the first Mon- 
day of the session, for the purpose of aiding the 
Committee on the State of the Church, appointed by 
the House of Deputies in drafting their reports." 

Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey. This 
is a very important aid to the Committee on the 
state of the Church. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

CANON ON DIVORCE. 

The next business on the Calendar was the report 
of the Committee on Canons, on Message No. 21 
from the House of Bishops, containing an amended 
Canon on Divorce, which concluded with the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

"Resolved, That the House of Deputies concur 
with the House of Bishops in the proposed Canon on 
the subject of Divorce, with the following amend- 
ments : 

" 1. Strike out Section I. 

" 2. Strike out Sections III., IV., and V. 

"3. Strike out the words 'Section II.' 

" So that the Canon may read as follows : 
" Of Marriage and Divorce.'" 

"No minister of this Church shall solemnize ma- 
trimony in any case where there is a divorced wife 
or husband of either party still living, and where 
the divorce was obtained for some cause arising 
after marriage ; but this Canon shall not be held 
to apply to the innocent party in a divorce for the 



cause of adultery, or to parties once divorced seek- 
ing to be united again." 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. The only 
change in the present Canon there is the introduc- 
tion of the clause, " cause arising after marriage." 
The Conunittee thought it was inexpedient to in- 
troduce, at all events at tin's time, the penal arrange- 
ments which were provided in the Canon as sent 
from the House of Bishops. In order to understand 
the matter, perhaps Message No. 21 from the House 
of Bishops had better be read. 

The SECRETARY read Message No. 21 from the 
House of Bishops. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. The 
House will perceive that the changes proposed by 
the Committee on Canons on the action of the 
Bishops are these : In the first place, we leave out 
the first section proposed by them, " if any persons 
be joined together otherwise than as God's Word 
allows, their marriage shall not be lawful," 
simply on the ground of its being un- 
necessary. That is in the marriage service, and 
it is thought better not at present to burden 
the Canon by putting the paragraph in. Section 2, 
the Committee propose to adopt exactly as it comes 
down to us in the message of the Bishops. The 
amendment of the present Canon is that the divorce 
must be for caiise existing previous to marriage. 
That amendment is made in the Canon as it stands 
in the Journal of 1871. That is all the change pro- 
posed in the second section, or in the existing 
Canon. 

Then the third, fourth, and fifth sections of the 
Canon coming down from the House of Bishops, it 
is proposed to strike out entirely. These sections 
provide for inflicting penalties for violations of the 
Canon, and providing the machinery by which the 
facts of the case may be reached. We thought it in- 
expedient at this time to legislate on these sub- 
jects. 

Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey. Is 
there anv provision made for restoration ? 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. The new matter is the 
introduction of the words : 

" And where the divorce was obtained for some 
cause arising after marriage. " 

The first was too sweeping, and this a qualifica- 
tion. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I think the dif- 
ficulty vnth regard to the old Canon was that it 
gave no protection to us, the clergy of the Church, 
in these cases, and this Canon as it comes down 
from the House of Bishops gives us protection ; that 
is to say, it says what we are to do in 
reference to such persons coming forward to 
Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. I think 
that the laity and clergy of this Church on examin- 
ing the Bishops' Canon, will see that it is a right 
step in the divorce legislation of this Church. As 
to the reason for omitting the first clause of the 
Bishops' Canon because it cumbers us, I think that 
is a mistake. I think that every Christian man will 
see that the only proper basis of divorce is the judg- 
ment decreed by Christ Himself, and I am proud to 
say that in this great State of New York that still 
remains the basis of legislation, and in nine- 
teen cases out of twenty when a divorce is sued 
for in this State it is what we call the minor divorce, 
that is to say, a judicial separation of the parties, in- 
stead of breaking the bond of union. I think, as I 
say, that the Bishops' Canon is the more appropri- 
ate; it protects us; it defines the matter more clear- 
ly; it takes the thing out of the vagueness which 
was the general understanding of the initial step 
that we took in 1868, and which was imiversally 
censured by every one who desired that this subject 
of matrimony and divorce should be put upon prop- 
er and suitable ground. I therefore would move as 



an amendment that this House concur in the Canon 

that has come down from the House of Bishops. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move that 
this subject be referred to the next Convention. If 
we make a change in the Bishops' Canon, it will lead 
to debate there, and this is a difiicult and delicate 
subject. I am as much opposed to the report of the 
Committee almost as I am to the Canon sent down 
by the Bishops ; and I am perfectly certain that m a 
full Convention there would be a very exciting de- 
bate. I do not think we are at all prepared for it, 
and I do not think we can do more than refer it to 
the next General Convention. 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. How will that 
affect the present Canon ? 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. It will leave it just where 
it is. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to refer the mat- 
ter to the next General Convention. 
The motion was agreed to. 

POSTURES IN THE COMMUNION OFFICE. 

The next business on the Calendar was the report 
of the Committee on Canons, on a resolution re- 
questing the expression of their opinion as to pos- 
tures in the Communion Service. The resolution of 
the Committee is as follows : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be dis- 
charged from the consideration of the proposed re- 
solution in regard to postures in the Communion 
Service." 

The SECRETARY. The following resolution 
was offered by Dr. Schenck, of Long Island, to be 
placed on the Calendar in this connection : 

" Resolved, That this House re-enact the pream- 
ble and resolution passed at the session of the Gen- 
eral Convention in 1829, viz. : 

" Whereas, In the celebration of the Communion 
Office there is a variety of posture observed, and it 
is desirable that uniformity as far as practicable 
should be obtained in this respect. Therefore, 

" Resolved, That this House do respectfully re- 
quest of the House of Bishops the expression of their 
opinion as to the proper postures to be used in the 
said Office, with a view of effecting uniformity in 
that respect during the celebration." 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. The reso- 
lution never belonged to the Committee on Cr nous 
at all. It was introduced on the sixth day of the 
session, and in the remarks which I made on intro- 
ducing it, I closed with the words : 

" I only offer it now that it may take its place on 
the Calendar. " 

And the President said : 

" The resolution will go on the Calendar." 

How the Committee on Canons succeeded in get- 
ting hold of it after that, I am unaware. At any 
rate, they got it, sat on it, and incubated the reso- 
lution which has just been reported, the shell of 
which I shall be very happy to crack, if there is 
anvthing in it, because I do not think it ought to 
bebefore the House in that form. I introduced the 
resolution on the sixth day of the session, in order 
that early action might be had upon it, because I 
understood that many members of the House of 
Bishops wanted the resolution before them, 
but it was in the Committee on Canons during the 
long period we were discussing the Confirmation 
of Professor Seymour, and it was only after that that 
I began to look after it, and found it was not on the 
Calendar. So after a ramified search I succeeded in 
unearthing it and got it placed on the Calendar, and 
that is the way it is before us now. I beg there- 
fore to suggest that the report of the Committee on 
Canons is a mistake, and is not in order, and ought 
not to receive any action from this House ; but that 
we ought to consider the resolution simply upon its 
merits. I am very well aware that if I were to 



406 



press the resolution now I should be answered by 
the trite complaint of the thinness of the House. 
I beg to say that there is no such complaint as that 
on the part of the Deputies from Long Island. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. As far as 
I know, the Committee on Canons are willing to 
withdraw their report. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I would 
like to submit this resolution for passage. It is a 
very simple thing, and I know that the House of 
Bishops have been looking for it for some time, and 
I know that it will be very gratefully received 
there. I do not propose to discuss it. It is simply 
to re-enact a resolution which was passed 
in the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies, at the General Convention of 
1839. The resolution I now offer is precisely in the 
words of the resolution of 1829, and the House of 
Bishops received that resolution and acted upon it, 
and in the General Convention of 1832 they set forth 
and expressed the unanimous opinion of the House 
of Bishops touching the proper postures in the 
Commuuion service. We know very well that the 
most of those postures are regulated by Rubric. It 
is only proposed that the Bishops would express 
their opinion where the Rubrics are vague and un- 
certain, or where they give no special direction. 

The opinion, as set forth then, has been, as a gen- 
eral thing, complied with, and the consequence is 
that there has been a general use of the Church, 
until within the last few years ; and now that we 
have passed the Canon on Ritual, which is designed, 
like the Public Worship regulation bill, passed in 
England lately, to facilitate proceedings, touching 
the irregular practices, it seems to me important, 
that as supplementary to that action there should be 
a reassertion of the aggregate or unanimous opinion 
of the House of Bishops touching the proper postures 
to be observed in the Communion Office, that Bish- 
ops having cases brought before them for their con- 
sideration, can be guided, if not governed in their 
action by such opinion as may be set forth by the 
House of Bishops, so that we may have adjudica- 
tions under a common use throughout the whole 
country. Otherwise we may find complaint made 
in one Diocese touching postures assumed in the 
Communion Office that may be adjudicated in one 
way, and in another Diocese in another way, which 
will make a conffict of decision that is certainly very 
undesirable. 

To those who, if it be possible that there are any 
such in the General Convention, may not have 
looked beneath the surface of this thing, I would 
simply say that the very essence of the action 
taken by this body is in regard to Eucharistic ador- 
ation ; and we know very well that the time that 
is offered is after the consecration of the elements ; 
and we know that in 1832 the Bishops unanimously 
set forth that the proper posture of the singing of 
the hymn, and the Gloria in Excelsis was the stand- 
ing posture for the priest and people ; and we 
know that has been forgotten or ignored, and that 
therefore that very question of posture as indica- 
ting the adoration is the question of the most im- 
portance to be adjudicated. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I want to 
make a motion in regard to this resolution of the 
Reverend Doctor from Long Island ; but I should 
like, in the first place, to say that I think he has 
quite misunderstood the purport of our action in 
this House in the Ritual Canon, as I think I can 
show. 

The Ritual Canon presents four different kinds 
of Ritual acts. First, bowing ; second, genuflec- 
tions ; third, kneehngs ; and fourth, prostrations. 
It approves of one of these — kneelings ; it forbids 
three of them — bowings, genuflections, and prostra- 
tions. Now, it is very evident that bowing and 



I genuflections are not as reverential as kneeling; and 
prostrations may be said to be excessive kneeling. 
1 Now, I take it that that Canon forbade prostrations 
in the interest of forbidding transubstanjiiation, and 
it forbade bowings and genuflections in the interest 
of forbidding things less than that which kneeling 
j typifies. Kneeling typifies the doctrine of the real 
presence. I take it, therefore, that bowings and gen- 
uflections probably typify Zwinglianism and Cal- 
vinism, and, therefore, that these three things are 
aimed at. I do not believe that the difficulties 
which the Reverend Doctor speaks of are ever 
going to be met by anything issued by the House of 
Bishops on this subject. There are difficulties, but 
they will be settled by and by. I, therefore, move 
that the resolution of the reverend gentleman from 
Long Island be laid upon the table. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I hope 
the same respectful consideration which has been 
given to other matters will rather cause its post- 
ponement to the next Convention, 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution can be intro- 
duced at any time when the Convention meets. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. That 
would be a more graceful go-by. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the resolu- 
tion be laid on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

CLOSING SERVICES IN CALVARY CHURCH. 

A message (No. 100) from the House of Bishops 
informed the House of Deputies that it had adopted 
the following resolution: 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), 
That the Pastoral Letter be read in Calvary Church 
this Tuesday evening at half -past seven o'clock." 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The House of 
Bishops propose that the closing services to-night be 
held in Calvarj^ Church. I will state why. They 
say, on election day, this is a part of the city that 
they would not like to invite people to at night. If 
notice be given now, it can be in the afternoon pa- 
pers. On behalf of the Committee on Closing Ser- 
vices, I move that the message of the House of 
Bishops be concurred in. 

The motion was agreed to. 

CLERGYMEN CHARGEABLE WITH MISDEMEANOR, 

A message (No, 101) from the House of Bishops 
informed the House of Deputies that it concurred 
in Message No, 96 from the House of Deputies, con- 
cerning amendments of Section 1 of Canon 3 of 
Title II, of the Digest, 

COMMITTEE SERVICE, 

A message (No. 102) from the House of Bishops 
informed the House of Deputies that ix> concurred in 
Message No. 104 from the House of Deputies, con- 
tinuing the Joint Committee on the Lectionary; and 
in Message No. 102 from the House of Deputies, en- 
larging the Joint Committee on the Spanish Prayer- 
Book. 

INFORMATION ASKED. 

A message (No. 103) from the House of Bishops 
informed the House of Deputies that it had adopted 
the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That this House respectfully asks the 
House of Deputies for information whether it has 
taken any action on the subject of Message No, 21 
from the House of Bishops communicating a Canon 
of Divorce, or of Message No, 27 from the House of 
Bishops communicating an addition to Canon 19 
of Title I,, as to Pastoral teaching concerning fami- 
ly worship, light and vain amusements, and, if so, 
what in the respective cases," 

SYNODS OF DIOCESES. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 



407 



ing resolution, submitted by Rev. Dr. Kidney, of 
Minnesota : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That a joint commission, to consist of three Bishops, 
three Presbyters, and three laymen, be appointed 
to report to the next General Convention a Canon, 
or a constitutional amendment, or whatever legisla- 
tion may be necessary, to authorize the formation 
of Synods of Dioceses, or some kind of ecclesiastical 
union of Dioceses, within the same State or Com- 
monwealth. " 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. I do not pro- 
pose to say anything, Mr. President, upon the merits 
of this question, but I observe that the matter of 
the provincial system was debated on the day be- 
fore yesterday, during my absence. Had I been 
here, I should have desired to obtain the floor to say 
something upon it. I hope, however, that the House 
will allow this measure to pass, namely, the ap- 
pointment of a Joint Commission to take under con- 
sideration the subject named in the resolution. It 
will relieve a want which is felt by eveiy Diocese 
which has divided or which proposes to divide. 
Some may think that the existing Canon allowing 
the federation of Dioceses is all-sufiicient, 
but it does not meet all the wants 
of those who desire this thing. To say 
no more about it, I will mention one or two defi- 
ciencies in it. In the first place, there is no pro- 
vision made by that Canon for unanimity or uni- 
formity of action in this particular. Every federa- 
tion of Dioceses under that Canon may be different 
from any other federation. There is no similarity 
It is best therefore, I contend, that this House should 
determine what are to be the powers of any such 
synodical body which may be formed, rather than 
that, according to the terms of the existing Canon, 
they shall present the powers to the General 
Convention which they propose to exercise. 

More than tliat, it is a desired thing that when Dio- 
ceses propose to divide, they shall be able to retain a 
symbol of their union before such division has actual- 
ly been accomplished; in other words, that they may 
still be one as a Synod before division takes place. 
It is well that such a commission should take int o 
consideration the propriety of appending such a 
clause to any Canon or other document which may 
be thought necessary. 

Unless this is done, we shall have schemes origina- 
ting in individual minds, and I contend that it is 
better that there should be a commission composed 
of thoughtful men who shall supplement each other's 
thoughts, and who will be able to mature a better 
scheme than is hkely to originate in any one indi- 
vidual mind. It is a want that is felt; it is a relief 
that is desired to be granted, in some shape or 
other, it will come up before every Convention that 
meets hereafter. It is proposed that we shall now 
take the initiative, and obtain, if possible, a commis- 
sion of wise men who shall deliberate upon this mat- 
ter together, and mature some scheme which sooner 
or later will meet with our assent. 

I say nothing more whatsoever upon the merits 
of this question, but simply express my hopes that 
the House will allow the appointment of a Joint 
Commission, to consist of three Bishops, three 
Presb.yters, and three laymen who proba- 
bly ought to be selected from the Dio- 
ceses at the East, that they can readily 
meet together without trouble or great expense, 
who shall take up this matter and endeavor, if pos- 
sible, to relieve the wants which have been felt or 
expressed. Then we shall have some scheme ma- 
tured worthy of our consideration rather than that 
schemes less carefully matured shall be brought up 
by individuals to be rejected. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I second the mo- 
tion. I am very willing to have such a commission, 



and to have them exhaust all their efforts to pro- 
duce something that will work. What we have now 
certainly does not work. If they can make anything 
that will work without doing harm, I have no ob- 
jection. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop- 
tion of the resolution. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. This subject has 
been before the General Convention, more or less, 
since the year 1862, but it has never had the advan- 
tage of being before any General Convention in 
such a matured shape as to give it any fair chance 
of decent consideration. It has been left to indi- 
viduals to bring in their schemes now at one time 
and now at another. The very magnitude of the 
subject has swamped it in the Committee on Can- 
ons ; and when it has been brought up it has been 
in so imperfect a shape, in such a puzzled way, and 
so late in the session that it has amounted to little or 
nothing. The very magnitude of the question is so 
great that all the thought and all the care that can 
be given by a joint commission during the recess of 
the General Convention is none too much to give to 
a thing which we must have sooner or later, and 
the sooner we get it in a well-matured shape the 
better. 

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. Only one word. 
When the diocese of New Jersey determined to di- 
vide there was a general expression in the Conven- ♦ 
tion of regret that there should be a division where 
there had been so much harmony and so much unity; 
and in order to avoid it a plan was proposed some- 
what similar to this suggested synod, that 
is to say, that there should be an organization 
which should keep the two Dioceses somewhat to- 
gether under some such plan, and it was advocated 
very earnestly by a great many of our people, and 
among the rest by myself. I regret very much 
that it was lost by a small majority. But there is 
no doubt in my mind that something of this kind 
would promote harmony and unity in the Church 
more than anything else we can accomplish. I trust 
therefore the resolution will pass. 

The resolution was agreed to, and the President 
appointed as the Joint Committee on Synods of 
Dioceses, on the part of the House of Deputies, Rev. 
Dr. Cady, of New York, Rev. Dr. Kidney, of Min- 
nesota, Rev. Dr. Paret, of Central Pennsylvania, 
Mr, Forsyth, of Albany, Mr. Meigs, of New Jersey, 
and Mr. Redfield, of Vermont. 

ABANDONMENT OF COMMUNION, 

The House next proceeded to consider the report 
of the Committee on Canons upon Message No. 29 
from the House of Bishops, proposing an amended 
Canon " Of the Abandonment of Communion of this 
Chm^ch by a Bishop." 

The Committee reported the following resolu- 
tion : 

" Resolved, That this House concur with the House 
of Bishops in their proposed amendment to Canon 
8, Title II., with the following amendments : 

"1. Insert after the word ' Church,' in the fourth 
line of the amended Canon, these words, ' either by 
an open renunciation of the doctrine, discipline, or 
worship of the Church, or by a formal admission 
into any religious body not in communion with the 
same or otherwise. ' 

" 3. In the thirteenth line of the same, strike out 
' shall ' and insert ' may.' 

"3. Insert after the word 'deposition,' at the end 
of the first clause of said amended Canon, these 
words, ' And in case the Bishop so abandoning the 
Communion of the Church be the Presiding Elder, 
the Bishop next in order of seniority shall be deemed 
to be, and shall act as, the Presiding Bishop under 
this Canon.' 



408 



"4. After the word 'false,' in the second clause, 
insert these words, 'and shall demand a trial,'" 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move to concur in the 
amendments. This provides for such a case as that 
of Bishop Cummins, who recently left this Church. 
It has been carefully perfected by the Committee on 
Canons of this House and of the House of Bishops. 
It is important that it should be acted upon. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I make objec- 
tion simply to one phrase in the proposed amend- 
ments of the Committee on Canons. I make 
objection to the idea that the Presiding Bishop of 
this Church should in any case abandon the Church. 
I think it is a great wrong to make such a supposi- 
tion, and I think it would go out to the Church that 
this Committee on Canons has been rather tired 
out, and wanted to amuse themselves with a solemn 
joke on the Diocese of Kentucky. [Laughter,] 
That is to say, they seem to have the idea that, as 
the Assistant Bishop of Kentucky has gone and left 
us, so possibly the Senior Bishop of Kentucky may 
go and do the same. [Laughter.] 

Having made that jest (which I suppose is uncon- 
stitutional on my part), I would mention one thing 
that I object to in a constitutional way. There is 
such a thing as illegality, and lawyei*s are well ac- 
quainted with it. in di'awing up a marriage settle- 
ment, for instance, if the man contemplates the 
possible divorce of the parties, the settlement is in- 
valid, because there are certain things which we 
must not suppose, I, as a member of this House, 
do most solemnly protest against the Committee on 
Canons sitting down and placing on the 
face of our Canons the supposition that 
in any case whatsoever the Presiding Bishop may 
abandon the communion of this Church. The Pre- 
siding Bishop is a Bishop, and therefore we get to 
the bottom of the matter by a general statement 
that embraces all Bishops whatsoever ; but to put in 
the consideration of the Presiding Bishop abandon- 
ing the Communion of this Church is, I think, un- 
dignified and improper. 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. I entirely 
agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin, and hope 
this will not pass. I do not propose to suggest to 
any more Bishops the possibility or feasibility of 
their withdrawing from this Church. We have le- 
gislated and legislated looking to nothing else, it 
seems, but the abandonment of the ministry, or 
our doing something that ought not to be done. I 
think, as the Reverend Deputy from Wisconsin has 
said, that it is undignified for us to take this action, 
I hope this resolution will not pass, 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. The House of Bishops 
themselves, in perfecting the present Canon, put in 
a provision requiring the certificate of the fact of 
the abandonment of the Communion of this Church, 
to be made by the Standing Committee of the Dio- 
ceses to which the Bishops belonged. In the case 
of Bishop Cummins, the Standing Committee of 
the Diocese of Kentucky must make the certificate. 
The Canon provides that the certificate shall be sent 
to the presiding Bishop. Now, you see it is impor- 
tant to provide that ail the Bishops shall be treated 
alike ; therefore it is provided that, in case the pre- 
siding Bishop is the one abandoning, it shall be sent 
to the Senior Bishop. Otherwise your Canon is in- 
effective. 

We do not legislate at all with reference to the 
present Bishops. It is a law for this Church for 
all time to come. I say, of course, that there is no 
idea of reflecting upon any Bishop now in our 
House of Bishops. It is a permanent law for the 
future, and to have a law on our Statute-Book that 
you could drive a coach and four through would be 
entirely improper. Make it so that it shall apply to 
all Bishops ; treat them all alike, and the one who 
happens to be Presiding Bishop is provided for as 



well as others. Therefore if any Presiding Bishop 
hereafter shall abandon the communion of the 
Church, under the proposition of the Clerical 
Deputy from New Jersey, there would be no law 
for him. He could go on and do all the mischief he 
chose as Presiding Bishop, because there would be 
no law to dispose of him. We propose that in his 
case the matter shall go to the next Bishop in senior- 
ity under the Canons we have reported. 

The canon has been carefully perfected, in view of 
the recent case we had in our Church, by the Com- 
mittees of both Houses, and I think it is wise, and 
should be adopted. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing report from the Committee on Canons : 

"The Committee on Canons have had under con- 
sideration Message No. 39 of the House of Bishops, 
proposing an amendment of Section 1, Canon 6, 
Title 11. , ' Of the Abandonment of tlie Communion 
of this Church by a Presbyter or Deacon,' and re- 
commend the adoption of the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the House of Deputies concur 
with the House of Bishops in the proposed amend- 
ment of Section 1, Canon H, Title II., with the fol- 
lowing amendment : 

" Strike out the word 'and' after the word 'disci- 
pline ' in the sixth line, and insert the word ' or.' " 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move that the resolution 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. What does it 
amount to ? 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I wiU tell you. After the 
Cheney and Cummins schism, a Presbyter of the 
Diocese of Pittsburgh declared that he had not 
abandoned the doctrine, discipline, and Avor- 
ship of this Church, though he favored that 
movement, because, he said, he had done 
nothing, and there was a technical difficulty in 
getting over that word "and." We propose to in- 
sert " or " in its place, which seems to be necessai-y 
to make it harmonious. It now is: " Abandon the 
doctrine, discipline, ancZ worship, " It requires the 
three to concur, and he denied having done so, 
though, in fact, he had gone into that movement, 
and we could not reach him. By inserting the word 
" or " in place of " and, " it relieves it of the diflB- 
culty, and makes it in harmony with our legisla- 
tion. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

ORDER OF DEACONESSES. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing resolution reported by the Joint Committee on 
Canons : 

"Resolved, that the Committee on Canons be dis- 
charged from the consideration of the proposed 
' Canon of Deaconesses or Sisters. ' " 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolma. I would 
say that there has been a joint committee since ap- 
pointed to take that matter into consideration and 
to report to the next General Convention. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. Mr. 
President, it is one of the inestimable privileges of 
Deputies not members of the Committee on Canons, 
that they are able to criticise the proceedings of those 
who are members of that Committee ; and without 
any intention whatsoever of opposing the passage of 
the resolution now before the House, I do wish to 
call the attention of the members to the very in • 
structive history of this measure. Whence did it 
come^ From individual impulse? Not at all. 
It was introduced here by a committee 
appointed three years ago, composed of 
three Bishops, three clergyinen, and three lay- 
men, who considered the subject for three years 
and brought in a unanimous report, and unani- 
mously recommended the passage of the proposed 
Canon. This Committee, be it remembered, in- 



409 



eluded among its members the Bishops of three 
Dioceses, iu which there is probably more woman's 
work done to-day than in all the other Dioceses of 
the Church put together. The measure, instead of 
being made the order of the day, as should have been 
done, was referred to the Committee on Canons, 
briefly considered by them and disallowed. 
Now there is every probability this Canon or one 
substantially identical with it will be introduced in 
the next General Convention for action. There- 
fore, the few words I have to say on the subject 
are not irrelevant. 

Many members now present will probably be 
members of the next General Convention ; and in 
the name of the late Commission that brought in 
this measure, I ask them earnestly to consider 
the principles involved in it. " The funda- 
mental principle is this: that there shall be 
no organized work in this Church, wearing the liv- 
ery of this Church, that is not imder Episcopal su- 
pervision. In other words, the principle underlying 
the proposed measure is the very important one of 
visitorial rights. I am too much of an Episcopalian. 
I use the word advisedly, and with regard to its 
etymological significance — in other words, I have 
too much faith in the wisdom of the right of inspec- 
tion in ecclesiastical affairs, not to deprecate the ac- 
tion of the Committee on Canons in disallowing this 
measure. 

A great deal was said in our debate in secret ses- 
sion about a certain community in a neighboring 
Diocese, which was represented as being of a most 
objectionable character. Sir, do we desire that 
feminine counterparts shall spring up all over this 
land, wholly independent of Episcopal supei-vision 
and control? 

Many persons will argue that this measure, if car- 
ried, will hamper the free development of woman's 
work. Nothing of the sort. Look at the names of 
the persons recommending it. Would the Bishop of 
this Diocese, think you, ever affix his name to a re- 
port recommending a Canon which would hamper 
woman's work ? Would the Bishop of Long Island, 
having under his care at present the most efficient 
body of Deaconesses in the land, have put his name 
to a recommendation to hamper woman's work ? 
When you look at the terms of the Canon itself, 
what is there in it of a restrictive character, save 
only that to which I have referred, namely, that it 
ensures the right of Episcopal supervision ?" All the 
vexed questions are untouched in it, and purposely 
and intentionally untouched. Nothing is said 
about the question of putting women who are 
officially engaged in the Church's work, in uniform. 
That whole question is left, as it ought to be left, an 
open question. Nothing is said about the question 
of celibacy, another vexed question which ought 
to be left open in connection with the female 
diaconate just as much as it is left open in connec- 
tion with the male diaconate. 

Moreover, it is probable that this measure would 
have received the unanimous support of the Com- 
mittee on Canons, but for one omission, which 
might have been supplied in debate, and possible 
would have been. There was a fear that, while the 
rights of Bishops were sufficiently guarded, the 
rights of Presbyters were not ; and if a simple amend- 
ment had been added, providing that no deaconess 
or sister, and no community of deaconesses or sisters 
shall be introduced into a parish against the consent 
of the settled minister of that parish, undoubtedly 
the measure would have been carried by almost 
two-thirds. 

I make these remarks knowing very weU that the 
subject will come up in a similar shape three years 
hence, and hoping if what I have said is true, and 
commends itself to your judgment as wise and just, 



\ that you will give it some thought diu"ing the in 
j terval. 

One point more, and only one. It has been said 
I that this Commission was appointed to consider the 
! expediency of reviving the primitive order 
! of deaconesses ; and therefore it ought to 
I have confined itself to that point only, and be- 
cause it did not confine itself to that point, therefore 
this recommendation ought not to be received. Is 
that quite fair ? Suppose that Committee, upon ex- 
I amining the subject, did find that it was not expe- 
dient to revive, strictly according to its ancient and 
i primitive form, that order of deaconesses, did that 
! necessarily forbid their bringing in a measure 
I which had to do with woman's work in general 
i and the regulation of it ? The simple fact is, 
i that this Commission found a certain state 
j of things existing — ^namely, persons working 
as ministering women in the Church, in one 
Diocese under the name of Sisters, and in another 
j Diocese under the name of Deaconesses. They did 
not lay down the law on the subject at all. They 
I simply said that so far as Chm'ch government is 
concerned, we will have one imif orm status for the 
ministering woman ; you may call her Deaconess, 
if you please ; you may call her Sister, if you please ; 
but whatever you call her, if she is regarded as in 
any sense officially attached to this Church, that 
official status shall be definitive, and we shall know 
just what it is, and it shaU be a status that is under 
Episcopal control. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, 
it is again pleasant to find the Convention allowing 
ten minutes for the discussion of a practical subject. 
[" Five."] Five here and five there make ten, audit 
is very encouraging, for this is really a practical 
subject. 

The PRESIDENT. I understand from the Secre- 
tary that this matter has been disposed of. 

Dr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. No vote has been 
taken on it yet. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. A Joint Com- 
mittee has been appointed to consider the subject. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Time, a Joint 
Committee has been appointed to consider the sub- 
ject ; but the Committee on Canons ha.ve a resolu- 
tion on your Calendar which has never been taken 
from the Calendar, and we may take it up now and 
pass it. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Go on and 
make your speech while we are investigating the 
subject. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I hope those of 
you who are yoimg enough to be here three years 
from now will remember that when a practical sub- 
ject is brought up and referred to the Committee on 
Canons it is really referred to a committee whose 
main business it is to prepare specimens of f ossihzed 
conservatism. I say this is a practical subject, and 
only this day I had the pleasure of conveying to the 
Bishop of Colorado the intelligence that one of the 
sisters of the Bishop Potter Memorial House, whom 
he desired to have, would be ready to go back with 
him, and another expressed a readiness to go in the 
spring. We are exceedingly anxious to have it 
brought under Episcopal supervision, and have it 
receive the sanction of the Church as soon as the 
Church is prepared to take one step forward in the 
great work that has been committed to us. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the reso- 
lution to discharge the Committee. 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I am glad that 
what has been said by the Clerical Deputy, my friend 
from Massachusetts, has put this question in so rigLt 
a light before the House. The question here con- 
cerns not simply an indigenous diaconate, but it 
has to do with the importation of womanly help 
from abroad that is here seeking employment. 



410 



I think it of the first importance that all 
such womanly help should be amenable 
to the authority of the Diocese in which it 
works, that it should not be responsible to a foreign 
headship ; and while nominally it is so, yet I believe 
from the testimony of the Bishop of Honolulu, and 
also of Bishops in this country, it has not been prac- 
tically so. Therefore the great importance of an 
indigenous diaconate among our holy and noble 
women who will devote themselves to the cause of 
Christ subject to the authority of this Church, and 
that this Church also shall insist as a condition of 
help from abroad that it shall be subject to the same 
rule. 

I do not propose to discuss it, but I am very glad 
it has been brought before the Convention to work 
in the minds of the members of it until this body as- 
sembles again. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsm. With regard 
to this matter of "the Female Deaconateand also of 
Sisterhoods, " I think it is one of the most important 
things that ever have been brought before this 
Church ; and it was brought before the Church 
prominently by one of the greatest members of the 
Church, the late Alonzo Potter, Bishop of Pennsyl- 
vania. I do hope that in this matter, we shall comply 
with the request of the Committee on Canons, and 
adopt their resolution. I propose that the whole 
matter be referred to the next Ceneral Convention 
for consideration. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. A Joint Com- 
mittee has been appointed to take into considera- 
tion this whole subject during the recess, and report 
to the next General Convention. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I withdraw 
the motion I made, and move that it be referred to 
that Joint Committee. 

Mr. STEVENSON", of Kentucky. Why cannot 
the Canon be passed now ? 

The PRESIDENT. Because we have raised a Joint 
Commission and referred the matter to it, and no 
Canon is reported to us. The resolution reported 
from the Committee on Canons is that they be dis- 
charged from the consideration of the subject. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. And I 
hope it will be understood, Mr. President, that this 
report was not made through any lukewarmness or 
indifference to the work. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I should like 
to hear from the Committee why we cannot con- 
sider this practical subject, one of great import- 
ance, now. This putting off till to-morrow what 
ought to be done to-day, and the Church to lose all 
the benefit of active work, it seems to me, speaks a 
want of efficiency in the Episcopal Church which 
ought not to be charged against it. Now — 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I was about to 
answer the gentleman, and I think I can answer 
him to his satisfaction. The Committee on Canons 
had referred to them the report of the Committee, 
to which the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
referred. That Committee was in the terms of the 
resolution creating it for the consideration of the 
expediency of reviving the primitive order of Dea- 
conesses. That was the subject before the Com- 
mittee. It was upon that subject that their report 
was to be made. The Committee on Canons found 
that the Canon which was proposed by the 
Committee was on Deaconesses, or Sisters 
hoods. There was an order of Deaconesse- 
in the ancient Church, most undoubtedly, but we 
found throughout this Canon that the word "sis- 
ter" and "sisterhood" was used as synonymous 
with the word " deaconess." We were not prepared 
to say how far these two were identical, and there- 
fore we preferred to separate them, and to leave the 
whole matter of the management and control of sis- 
terhoods to the several Dioceses. Meanwhile, a 



Joint Commission has been raised to take this whole 
subject into consideration, and to report to the next 
General Convention. 

Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey. I 
move that the Committee on Canons be discharged 
from the further consideration of the subject. 

Rev. Dr. KNICKERBACKER, of Minnesota. 
This matter was referred to a Joint Commission at 
the last General Convention. They have had the 
matter under consideration, and they have reported 
to us a Canon, the result of their deliberation and 
judgment. Why cannot that be called up and pro- 
posed at this convention? Do we expect that a new 
Commission- can deliberate further, or enter more 
fully into the whole question? The whole question, 
I consider, was referred to a Commission three 
years ago, and they have settled upon this Canon. 
It seems to me we ought to adopt it, and not put off 
practical legislation of this Idnd so long. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Was that 
Canon adopted by the House of Bishops ? 

The PRESIDENT. No, sir. 

The SECRETARY. The whole matter was re- 
ferred, by the action of the two Houses, to a Joint 
Committee to report at the next Convention, 

Rev. Mr, HOPKINS, of Albany, The Canon, 
then, is not before us ? 

Rev, Dr, HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts, 1 
would remind the House that the Chairman of the 
new Commission, namely, the Bishop of the Diocese 
of Alabama, is in full accord with the language of 
the Canon as reported to this House, There is not 
the slightest doubt that, so far as he is able to shaoe 
the doings of this commission, it will bring in iden- 
tically this measure. Therefore, if this House is pre- 
pared at this late day to pass the measure as intro- 
duced by the Committee, which considered it for 
three years carefully, then you will just save the 
Commission so much trouble. I am not very anxious 
about it, but I think if it can be done it would be 
well to be done. 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I have only a remark to make. The subject, 
of course, is an exceedingly important one. It is 
one that involves, I suppose, the most earnest work 
in this Church now. If we postpone the passage of 
any Canon until the next General Convention, we 
are not stopping this work. It is going on. The lay 
Deputy from Pennsylvania has just told us that this 
very day a member of that most admirable institu- 
tion, the Bishop Potter Memorial House, has de- 
cided to join the Bishop of Colorado ; and other 
Deaconesses are doing their work. We do 
not stop any work by considering this matter a lit- 
tle longer. It surely would do no harm to give 
three years more to the consideration of what is, 
the best practical way of organizing this most im- 
portant labor. Therefore it seems to me that we 
can safely adopt this resolution, discharging the 
Committee on Canons, as we have already permit- 
ted a Joint Commission to go on with its labors. We 
shall then be prepared at the next General Conven- 
tion to come to some definite and positive legisla- 
tion, and not do it in a hasty way now. Meanwhile 
the work will not be interfered with in the least; it 
will go on whichever ; action we take. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I call for the 
reading of the Report of the Commtteeon Canons. 
I think that will give the House full information 
as to the ground upon which we acted. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

" The Committee on Canons, to whom was refer- 
red the Canon reported by the Joint Committee ap- 
pointed at the last General Convention, respectfully 
report that they are unable to recommend the pas- 
sage of said Canon as it has come to them, for the 
reason that it is not sufficiently explicit as to 
what is to be understood by the word 'Deaconess.' 



411 



Throughout the proposed Canon the word 

Sister is used as synonymous with ' Deaconess ' ; 
although, as it appears to this Committee, 
there is a marked difference between the Order 
of Deaconesses, as described by early Chris- 
tian writers, and the association of Christian women 
now existing under the name of Sisterhoods. While 
we fully appreciate the value and usefulness of the 
service "rendered by these Sisterhoods, we are not 
prepai'ed to make them identical with an order of 
ministers which undoubtedly existed in the Primitive 
Church, but regarding whose official position there- 
in we have so little certain knowledge. The Com- 
mittee therefore do not deem it expedient to legis- 
late at present upon the subject of the Order of Dea- 
conesses ; and they prefer to leave the subject of 
the Sisterhoods to such action as each Diocese may 
judge wise and proper for itself. 

" They therefore recommend the adoption of the 
following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be dis- 
charged from the consideration of the proposed 
' Canon of Deaconesses or Sisters. ' " 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. May I 
simply say that those who are curious on the subject 
will find the original Canon reported on page 60 of 
The Daily Churchman, and that the Committee on 
Canons considered these two subjects as different in 
themselves. They did not feel willing at present to 
make this legislation on the subject of Deaconesses; 
they did not feel prepared to go on with it ; and as 
to sisterhoods they thought it was altogether better 
that the arrangements, laws, and rules of sisterhoods 
should be left for each Diocese to regulate by itself. 
It is no aversion to the work, but it is simply a 
judgment that it is unwise at present to legislate, 
either for one or the other, in the Convention. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop 
tion of the resolution reported by the Committee 
on Canons. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

PAROCHIAL TEACHING. 

The SECRETARY. The next business on the 
Calendar is Report No. 28, from the Committee on 
Canons, as follows : 

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was re- 
ferred Message No. 27, from the House of Bishops, 
proposing an additional section to Canon 19 of Title 
I., 'Of Parochial Instruction,' respectfully report 
that they have considered the same, and recom- 
mend the adoption of the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That this House concur with the House 
of Bishops in the adoption of an additional section 
to be added to Canon 19, Title I., as proposed by the 
House of Bishops in their Message No. 27, with the 
amendment that the said sectioa shall read as fol- 
lows: 

" Sec. 2. Ministers shall also be diligent in teach- 
ing the people committed to their charge according 
to the doctrine of Christ ; observing and inculcating 
Christian holiness of life ; rebuking gaming, intem- 
perance, licentious theatrical amusements, and all 
amusements involving cruelty to the brute creation ; 
reproving all ungodliness, covetousness, and world- 
liness ; exhorting to the maintenance of family wor- 
ship and the due observance of the Lord's Day ; and 
calling upon parents and sponsors to train their 
children and god-children, both by precept and ex- 
ample, faithfully to observe their Baptismal vows." 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I move that 
we concur with the House of Bishops. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North CaroUna. We re- 
commend concurrence in the amended form. 

Rev, Dr. ADAMS, of Vfisconsin. What are the 
amendments ? 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. It would 
be impossible to say without first reading the origi- 



nal message, and I have not that. It is simply a 
change of language. The same substance is aimed 
at in both, 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I myself and a large num- 
ber of the Committee on Canons are opposed to this 
kind of legislation, to undertake to interfere with 
pastoral duties and to enumerate a lot of special 
duties without naming the hundredth part of them. 
We undertake to take up the details of a minister's 
work, and specify a few items, making a small deca- 
logue, and leaving all the rest out. Now, there is 
no limit where you can begin to specify what a 
minister shall teach ; there is no limit as to 
what he shall take up, and I think we have 
done enough when we have laid aown, as we 
did in our Nineteenth Canon, some general 
duties as to keeping the Lord's Day, etc. ; but when 
we undertake to say what he shall teach on this sub- 
ject and on that, in regard to theatres, dancing, etc., 
we are opening the door to an enumeration that 
there is no end to, and we are implied to sanction 
everything else that is not there enumerated. It is 
the duty of this Church to lay down general rules 
for the laity. It adopts the principles of the Apos- 
tles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, and the minister 
can teach such specific things as he thinks proper. 
If you look at the Nineteenth Canon, and then look 
at what is proposed to be added, I think it will be 
seen that there is serious objection to this special 
legislation. I, for one, v/as opposed to the report, 
and a large number of others in the Committee ; 
but, as one or two members persisted in it, we 
finally concluded that the report should be made. 
I wish ea.ch clergyman here would look at it for 
himseK ; he is more competent to judge of it than 
I, a layman ; but, to my mind, there is serious ob- 
jection to all this kind of legislation. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. I merely 
want to ask whether circuses, cock-fighting, and 
bull-baiting are mentioned ? [Laughter.] 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. They are im- 
plied. 

Mr. President, when this matter was first brought 
up I spoke about it and its importance, and I want 
to say now, in reply to the objection to legislation 
on this subject, that I am acquainted with some of 
the legislation of the Primitive Church, and that 
the main business of that legislation was to make the 
members of that Church holy and devout ; and with 
regard to this amendment to the Nineteenth Canon, 
I say that we just do that thing. We come forward 
and say by our legislation to the members 
of this Church that it is the business of our clergy 
to teach them, not simply Apostolic succession, the 
doctrine of the ministry, etc., but that, as members 
of this Church — the Church which I calculate is to 
be the Catholic Church of this country — they be 
holy in life and doctrine ; and I look upon this 
amendment to the Nineteenth Canon to be very dis- 
tinctly and clearly a declaration upon that point. I 
see no difficulty whatsoever in the objections that 
have been made against it by my distinguished 
friend Judge Otis, of Illinois. 

I hope, therefore, that the members of this Con- 
vention, the clergy, both High and Low, who want 
holiness of life and doctrine written on the banners 
of this Church, and ths laity who want morality 
and truth according to the best morality — that is, 
the morality of our Lord Jesus Christ — taught by 
this Church, will not listen to any picking of flaws 
or fault-finding, but will give us this resolution as 
it has come from the Committee on Canons. 

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I 
would ask the Reverend Deputy, who has just 
closed, whether it is intended that this Canon here 
proposed shall be an amendment to the Decalogue 
or an amendment to the Sermon on the Mount. 
Which one is it proposed to improve ? We have a 



412 



standard of morality set forth by the Church. We 

have in our constant work in the Church the princi- 
ples of Christian morality held up, and held up in 
language better, stronger, and clearer than could 
possibly be set forth in that Canon. 

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. In reply I 
would ask the reading of the Canon as proposed to 
be amended. 

The Secretary read the resolution. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. To 
properly appreciate and understand this section, it 
is well to look at the scope of the Canon which 
is to be amended. The Canon is a very brief one, 
and in Title I. is an injunction upon the ministers of 
our Church to be diligent in cateclietical 
instruction, and also in instruction in 
informing the youth and others in the 
doctrine. Constitution, and Liturgj^ of the 
Church. It will bS observed that the Canon as it now 
stands is simply an injunction upon clergymen to 
instruct children and others in the Catechism, and 
in the doctrine. Constitution, and Liturgy of the 
Church. The proposed amendment changes the entire 
character and scope of the Canon. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I think if I 
understand it right this is another section to be 
added to that. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. It 
is added, but I say it changes its entire character 
and scope. The present Canon is based upon the 
assumption that every clergyman in this Church 
inculcates morality, and vx^hat is more than morality, 
spirituality^ and holiness of life, and it did not deem 
it necessary that the duty which was imposed by 
the injunction of Holy Writ, and the very nature 
of their offices, should be made in the form of a 
Canon. I understand it is charged from outside 
that we do not inculcate Christian morality 
and spirituality, but that we only require teaching in 
the Catechism," Doctrine, Constitution, and Liturgy 
of the Church. If it is deemed proper to meet that 
absurd charge, then it would suffice to terminate 
the Canon at that part of it which enjoins upon the 
clergyman also to incalcate Christian holiness of 
life ; and that is as far as we can go if we follow 
the example, as I understand it, of our Divine Mas- 
ter, and the record He has left for us. He has 
not undertaken to define and specify the par- 
ticular things which Christians may or may 
not do, because that partakes of the nature of the 
law which He intended to supersede ; but He gave 
us a universal law, love to God, and love to our 
neighbor. He gave us directions in the Sermon on 
the Mount for the whole field of human duty, and 
this new law which He gave to us of love, is the 
expansion and interpretation of the ancient law 
given by Moses, if I have been properly instructed 
by my clergyman. 

Now, Mr. President, my objection to this is that 
it is too exclusive. As some one expressed it to me, 
expressio unius exclusio alterius. If you express 
one or two things, you will have next year some- 
thing else to be added specifically, and, it seems to 
me, we shall be only safe in making this matter 
general, as the Christian law is general. 

There is another very important reason. Differ- 
ences of opinion will exist about some things, and 
men must stand or fall in such matters b}^ their own 
consciences. It is between them and their God, and 
you cannot impose any duty upon a clergyman that 
will alter the freedom of opinion of individuals on 
such subjects. I move that all after the word 
"holiness " be stricken from the Canon. 

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. We are al- 
ready required to teach the Catechism. We cannot 
teach the Catechism without teaching the Ten Com- 
mandments. We cannot teach the Ten Command- 
ments without teaching the Sermon on the Mount 



explanatory of them. What more do we want ? I 
move to lay the whole subject on the table. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
to lay the whole matter on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

MINISTERS OFFICIATING IN OTHER CURES. 

T tie PRESIDENT. The next business on the Cal- 
endar is the report of the Committee on Canons, in 
reference to a proposed amendment to Section 6, of 
Canon 12, of Title I., relating to the officiating of 
Ministers within the cures of others, to which is 
appended the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the proposed 
amendment to Section 6, of Canon 12, of Title I." 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. The object of 
that resolution was to cover clergymen whose con- 
sciences are very tender with regard to officiating 
at funerals and other services at which they are 
obliged to officiate outside the limits of their own 
parishes. For example, those of us who are located 
in large towns or cities are sometimes obliged to go to 
cemeteries and to officiate outside of our own Church 
districts, and there certainly can be no harm in 
passing that addition to the Canons only intended 
to meet such cases. I hope, therefore, the report 
of the Committee will not be accepted. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I will explain the action of 
the Committee. It was proposed to amend our law 
so that a clergy^ man may go into the parochial cure 
of another and officiate at funerals, etc., without 
asking leave of the parochial rector. It was op- 
posed by the Reverend Chairman of our Committee, 
on the ground that if we commence letting do^^vn 
the bars in this direction, it would be done in other 
things, and lead to trouble perhaps ; and that is the 
secret of the whole thing. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop- 
tion of the resolution. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

TITLE OP HOUSE OF DEPUTIES. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business is the re- 
port of the Committee on Canons, relating to the 
title of this House, being the following resolution : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the 
House of Deputies, in making up the proceedings of 
the General Convention, and in the publication of 
the Journal of 1874, to strike out the words ' House 
of Clerical and Lay Deputies ' wherever they occur, 
and insert instead thereof the words ' House of Depu- 
ties.'" 

The resolution was agreed to. 

ORGANIZATION OF STANDING COMMITTEES. 

The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Cal- 
endar is the following resolution, reported by the 
Committee on Canons : 

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), 
That Section 1 of Canon 2, Title ill., be amended 
so as to read as follows : 

"Sec. 1. In every Diocese there shall be a Stand- 
ing Committee composed of an equal number of 
Presbyters and laymen, communicants of the 
Church, to be appointed by the Convention thereof, 
whose duties, except so far as provided for by the 
Canons of the General Convention, may be pre- 
scribed by the Canons of the respective Dioceses. 
They shall elect from their own body a president 
and a secretary. They may meet on their own ad- 
journment from time to time; and the President 
shall have power to summon special meetings when- 
ever he shall deem it necessary. " 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I move the in- 
definite postponement of that resolution, and I will 
give my reasons. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Dr. Stearns consents that 



413 



the Committee on Canons may explain their amend- 
ment. You will notice that the Standing- 
Committee of this Church, in each Diocese, is 
authorized and provided for by Canons of the 
General Convention. It is a ci-eature of the 
General Convention. The Standing Committees 
are appointed in each Diocese by the Diocesan Con- 
ventions. But, to come right to the point, the ques- 
tion is this : In every Diocese but three these Com- 
mittees are composed of clergymen and laymen. 
The Dioceses of Connecticut, Maryland and Easton 
Jiave, from time immemorial, from their first organ- 
ization after the Revolution, had their Standing 
Committees composed entirely of clergymen. In 
aU other Dioceses they are composed of clergymen 
and laymen. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. One word 
about Connecticut. At one time they changed and 
admitted laymen, and gave it up again. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. All who are familiar with 
the history of this Church know that the idea of in- 
troducing the laity was strongly opposed by Bishop 
Seabury, the first Bishop of Connecticut. There 
was then a fierce controversy, and finally a com- 
promise. The laity were introduced into 
the General Convention, without which, as 
Bishop White repeatedly said, we never 
could have organized under our general Constitu- 
tion. The laity are equal in this House, equal in 
the legislation of this House, equal in their consti- 
tutional rights. This provision now as proposed, of 
course, is to make the law of the General Conven- 
tion the lav/ of the whole Church, that there shall 
be a Standing Committee in each Diocese, and that 
that Standing Committee shall be composed of an 
equal number of clergymen and laymen. 

It is claimed that this should be done for a special 
reason. Two-thirds of our Bishops are elected dur- 
ing the interval between the meetings of the Gen- 
eral Convention. The laity have no voice in passing 
upon the credentials of Bishops-elect unless they are 
placed in these Standing Committees. Therefore, to 
preserve the rights of the three orders, the Bishops, 
clergy, and laity, this principle should extend into 
the Standing Committees of the Dioceses. If a 
Bishop is elected after the adjournment of this 
General Convention in three Dioceses of this 
Church, the laity are not exalted into taking part in 
the testimonials, but only the clergymen. To secure 
harmony, therefore, you will see the position 
of the Committee in this matter, and we do not un- 
derstand that it meets with any serious opposition 
from those Dioceses ; that at least is the informa- 
tion of the Committee on Canons ; and now, when 
we have authorized, in this body, these Standing 
Committees, shall we go a step further and say that 
they shall be composed of an equal number of 
clergymen and laymen ? The whole Church has 
practised upon this except the three Dioceses 
named. We have the clear constitutional right, in 
my opinion, to insist that t heir Stan die g Commit- 
tees shall be composed of the two orders, the 
clergy and laity, in equal number. I have no 
doubt about that. Whether it is wise or politic to 
insist upon it is the question. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. As a 
Deputy from a Diocese that limits its representation 
in the Standing Committee to the clerical order, I 
ask leave to say a few words on this subject. No 
proposition to change the Canons and the Constitu- 
tion of our Church has surprised me more than this. 
Suggested amendments of the Constitution, which 
had in them a clear sense of justice and right, have 
been passed over very summarily this session, and 
scarcely received attention enough to consider their 
merits; but here is a proposition to abridge the 
liberty of the Dioceses in a matter which does not 
concern the Church at large, which affects only two 



or three Dioceses. I cannot see that the prosperity of 
the parishes in New York or Illinois is affected by the 
fact that Maryland, Easton, and Connecticut com- 
pose tlieir Standing Committee of clergymen alone. 

I have objections to this iH'oposition independent 
of the arbitrary character of it. It provides that 
the Standing Committee shall be composed of equal 
numbers of the two orders, and questions may arise 
when one order would balance the other, and thus 
no decision be reached. 

But I have still stronger objections. Connecticut 
is the Primal Diocese of this land, and came origi- 
nally into the ecclesiastical union with reluctance, 
because her first Bishop, Seabui-y, had doubts about, 
or was opposed to, the inti-oduction of the lay ele- 
ment into our Church legislature. My reading of 
history does not show that there was any very great 
struggle upon that matter. Connecticut gave up all 
her preferences and cordially acceded to the Gene- 
ral Constitution ; and I challenge any one to show 
that from tha.t day to this she has not been as loyal 
as her sisters to the Church and as devoted to the 
advancement of its Apostohc principles. 

This Convention, mider its General Constitution, 
has no right to say that we shall have our Standing 
Committee composed of an equal number of clergy- 
men and laymen. What we have is in the nature 
of a chartered right, and there is nothing in the 
Constitution which authorizes this body to introduce 
the laity into the Standing Committee of Connecti- 
cut. 

It has been said that it was practised to some ex- 
tent in Connecticut. I would like to know where that 
history was obtained. Two attempts within my me- 
mory have been made to introduce the laity into the 
Standing Committee of Connecticut, but in both 
cases the attempts were defeated by the laity them- 
selves. They refused to reverse the history and pre- 
cedents of the Diocese in a matter which has come 
down to us from Seabury's time. It is true when 
Bishop Hobart provisionally administered the Dio- 
cese, accustomed as he was to the practice 
of his own New York, he did succeed in getting into 
the Standing Committee of Connecticut, for a single 
year, a lay element ; but they dropped it the very 
next year, and thereafter fixed in their constil ution 
a provision that the Standing Committee should be 
composed of clergymen alone. Before that, v/hen 
we acceded to the general Constitution, nothing was 
said in our Constitution about the orders composing 
the Standing Committee. It was taken for granted 
that the clergy would be chosen, and no other order. 
As I have said, what we have is in the nature of a 
chartered right, and you cannot take it away 
from us. 

More than that, Mr. President, it is fixed in our 
Constitution that the Standing Committee shall be 
chosen at the Annual Convention of the Diocese, 
and shall be composed of five clerical members. If 
you pass this Canon you put us to inconvenience if 
you do not make it practically inoperative, for we 
cannot change our Constitution under two years, 
and then only by a vote of two-thirds of the mem- 
bers of the Diocesan Convention. 

Now, sir, what is the advantage to be gained by 
this measure ? All that I hear said is that it will 
bring the Dioceses into harmony and make them 
uniform. Is it necessary to have a Canon for this 
purpose? Do Maryland, and Easton, and Con- 
necticut show themselves to be without the line 
now? Does the Diocese which I have the honor of 
representing on this floor fail to keep step with the 
Church as she marches on triumphantly to victory 
here and to victory there, or would she by this 
change be any more valuable in the warfare with 
the kingdom of Satan, or furnish better records of 
her zeal and reverence ? 

Now, sir, this is a mere theory, and it may well 



4U 



be left to slumber in the arms of the Committee 
reporting it. When Connecticut is ready to part 
with a cherished vestige of her ancient history, or 
when she can be made to see that her example, or 
the example of Maryland and Easton, is the least 
obstruction to the progress of the Church, then pass 
your Canon, and we will graciously submit to its 
direction ; not before. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, 
having introduced this proposition, I feel bound to 
answer some of the arguments of the Deputy from 
Connecticut. He says that it is a mere theory. 
Why, sir, if there is a fixed principle in om- Church, 
this is a principle. I would state that before introduc- 
ing it, it was my privilege to confer with the Bishop 
of Maryland and the Bishop of Connecticut. The 
Bishop of Connecticut, v/hile he would have been glad 
to have this change deferred until after his death, ad- 
mitted that it was right, and that if made, he would 
accede to it. The Bishop of Maryland thought that 
there were constitutional impediments, but he, too, 
I understood, would be glad to have the change 
made. I asked him if there were any persons in 
this House with whom I could confer about the 
question. He instanced Chief Justice Waite, and 
two others. I got them together, and they exam- 
ined it, and saw no diiSculty whatever, believing 
that the pov/er rests with us. i believe we under- 
stand that in the early history of the Church, when 
the approval of Bishops-elect was entii-ely with the 
Convention, and it was not exjoected that the 
Standing Committees would act, the General Conven- 
tion was chary about touching this matter ; but the 
moment the Standing Committees become our 
agents and our representatives, they cannot repre- 
sent us except they be organized on the very princi- 
ple of our Constitution. The Dioceses may have 
Standing Committees for their o\vn pm^poses and 
make them all of the laity or all of the clergy ; but 
if they be our Standing Committees, to do our 
work, to examine the fitness of a Bishop-elect for 
the ofiice, and if they are to perform the new duty 
we have just assigned to them in the Canon o^f 
Ritual, we caimot, according to my view, give them 
a power which we have not ourselves. We have no 
power to say to the clerical members of this Con- 
vention, "You may examine a person upon any 
particular thin^," and yet we tell the Diocesan 
Standing Committees that they may be made of all 
clergy or all laity without any restriction. 

I think gentlemen can easily see that there is a 
principle which lies at the very foundation struc- 
ture of our Church, and when we rise up or ask the 
dioceses to raise up Standing Committees to perform 
certain important duties, they should be made to 
correspond precisely with the principles of our 
Church. If it be a mere theory, then Connecticut 
and Maryland and Easton may continue as they 
are, and if they so continue there is nothing 
to hinder us from having every Standing 
Committee in the whole Church composed 
entirely of clergy or entirely of laymen. 

I recollect once visiting an insane hospital, and 
one of the men inside said to me: " We are not in- 
sane ; we are sane ; but we are in the minority now 
and we are inside. By-and-by when we get in the 
majority, you will all be in here and we shall be 
out." 

It may be that in some Dioceses the laity may 
have the upper hand; in others the clergy may have 
the upper hand ; and so we may have our Standing 
Committees, composed sometimes altogether of laity 
and sometimes altogether of clergy. The three 
Dioceses named, so far as we know, are the only 
Dioceses that have Standing Committees composed 
entirely of clergymen ; and from what I have heard 
from their Bishops, I am inclined to believe that if 
the change be made, if we have the power to make 



the change, it will be altogether agreeable to 
them. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I do not pro- 
pose to discuss this question ; I only wish to say that 
this is an important question involving the most im- 
portant riglits of Dioceses. There is a very small 
portion of the Convention here, and I understand 
even a less proportion present in the House of Bi- 
shops. I therefore move to postpone this question 
to the next General Convention. 

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. I ob- 
ject to that. The question is on indefinite postpone- 
ment. 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I had not 
heard that motion. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. I desire to say 
a single word, and it is upon the constitutional 
question. There are very serious doubts in my mind 
whether we can do this, notwithstanding the opinion 
which seems to have been given by Chief-Justice 
Waite. 1 dilfer toto ccelo from him on that point, 
but pei'haps it may be owing to the different legal 
schools in which we have been brought up. Let me 
illustrate this matter. Suppose the Congress of the 
United States propose an amendment to the Con- 
stitution of the United States. They refer 
them to the States ; and, as everybody knows, 
the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States may 
agree to it, and amend the Constitution. But will 
it be pretended that Congress can say to those 
States, " You must elect your Legislatures thus and 
so ; you must amend your Constitution as to the 
mode in which you elect your State Legislatures "? 
Not at all. It must accept the Legislatures 
of the States as the means by which it 
proposes an amendment to the Consti- 
tution. There is another mode pointed out, by 
which the Constitution of the United States may be 
amended ; and that is by calling a convention, 
which Congress also has the power to do. If they 
are dissatisfied with the Legislatures of the States, 
as the States present them, then they must resort to 
the other method, but they cannot go dovm to the 
States and say : ' ' You must elect your Legislatures 
thus and so. " That is an infringement upon the 
constitutional rights of the States, and Congress 
camiot do it. So, I apprehend, here we can- 
not do any such thing ; we cannot say 
to the different Dioceses of the general Church, 
" You must elect such and such members to your 
Standing Committees." We must accept the 
Standing Committees as the Dioceses present them 
to us. If the objection be raised that the laity 
ought to be represented in the choice of Bishops, 
then we must resort to the other alternative which 
is in our power ; we must require all the Bishops, 
whether elected within six months before the sit- 
ting of this General Convention, or not, to be pre- 
sented to us. That is the only way in which we 
can act. 

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I concur with 
the Deputy last up, except that I am more strong in 
my convictions that this proposition is clearly un- 
constitutional. It certainly ought not to be passed 
without a thorough examination of the question of 
power. Sir, these Dioceses are confederated Dio- 
ceses, within one General Convention, and I say to 
the Deputy from Pennsylvania, for whom I enter- 
tain great respect, that he will fail in his object for 
the reason that this Convention cannot force any 
Diocese to choose a Bishop except as that Diocese 
shall please. 

The Fourth Article of this Constitution says: 
' ' The Bishop or Bishops in every Diocese shall be 
chosen agreeably to such rules as shall be fixed by 
the Convention of the Diocese." The Diocesan 
Convention, under its Constitution, may exclude 
its laity, and why not? Who shall dare to say that 



they shall not? Have we any power to force a 
Diocese to send representatives to this Convention? 
Clearly not. They will be bonnd by your a^ts, but 
you cannot, unless that Diocese chooses to 
send representatives here, have it repre- 
sented. I utterly deny the power of this 
General Convention, much as I desire conformity 
and uniformity, to undertake to impose on a Dio- 
cese in the exercise of its individual, "constitutional 
Diocesan rights, the giving up of any privilege 
which they have had once, which has not been taken 
from them by the Constitution. So far from that 
being the case, the Constitution recognizes the con- 
stitutional right of each Diocese, respectively, to 
elect a Bishop in its own way; and there 
is no lawyer and no judge, and no member of 
this Convention, I think, who will say, looking at 
that provision, that a Diocesan Convention, if it 
pleases, by a unanimous vote of its Diocese may not 
frame a Constitution which shall exclude the laity 
from representation in their Diocesan Standing 
Committee. That being the case, I think we stand 
on tender ground, and we ought not to pass this 
Canon until the question has been examined. I 
hope it will be postponed, 

Mr. STARK, of Connecticut. I concur, Mr. Presi- 
dent, most heartily in the opinion expressed by the 
learned Deputies from Kentucky and G-eorgia in re- 
lation to the constitutional questions involved in 
the proposition before the House, and I rise, particu- 
larly on behalf of the laity of the Diocese of Con- 
necticut, to enter a respectful protest against the ac- 
tion that is proposed here upon this question. I be- 
lieve I speak the sentiments of the laity of that Dio- 
cese when I say that we are heartily in concurrence 
with the opinion expressed to the House by my 
clerical colleague from that Diocese, and that this 
House ought not, under these circumstances, to 
press this question to a vote, but ought to indefinite- 
ly postpone it as has been proposed. 

Rev. Dr. KIDNEY, of Minnesota. Mr. Presi- 
dent, this is not a question of how a Bishop shall be 
elected by a Diocese, so that the argument of the 
Lay Deputy from Kentucky is not relevant. It is a 
question as to the confirmation of a Bishop who has 
been elected. When a Bishop has been elected by a 
Diocese, as we know, that election must come before 
the Standing Committees of the several Dioceses 
and must be passed upon. Shall those Standing 
Committees be some of them composed of 
clergymen alone, or shall they be composed of 
clergymen and laymen for the sake of 
uniformity ? That is the question. I am clearly 
of opinion that this is a constitutional 
question, and that we have not the constitutional 
right to make this change, Nevertheless, the object 
desired is, I think, a worthy one ; not that we 
should interfere with the position of the Standing 
Committees, leaving so their several Dioceses to 
determine what they shall be, but that we should 
ensure, by some provision of canonical consent, that 
the election of a Bishop should be made 
not only by the clergy, but by the 
laity of every Diocese in the land. 
Therefore, I contend that we are not prepared to 
accede to this proposition, on the ground tha,t it 
does touch the constitutional rights of Dioceses, I 
am also prepared to state that we should refer the 
matter back to the Committee on Canons, in order 
that they may mature some resolution, some Canon, 
or some legislation whereby the question may be 
reached ; that is to say, whereby uniformity shall 
prevail throughout the Church in this land, that in 
the confirmation of a Bishop-elect, the laity of 
every Diocese, as well as the clergy, shall be repre- 
sented, and shall give their consent. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany, I would en- 
quire, first of all, whether any memorials have 



been sent up to this House, requesting this change, 
from the laity of the Diocese of Connecticut ? 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. No; the 
measure came without any memorial. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Have any me- 
morials been sent in from the Diocese of Maryland 
from the laity ? 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. No, sir. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Have any 
been sent in from the laity of the Diocese of 
Easton ? 

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. No, sir. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. We are told 
the attempt was made in the Diocese of Connecti- 
cut, and was voted down by the laity. I have also 
been informed that the attempt has been made in 
the Diocese of Maryland, and has been voted down 
by the laity. And so far as it seems to me now, 
after the answers to my questions, it would appear 
that the change is memorialized for in 
these three Dioceses by no person but the 
Lay Deputy from Pennsylvania. Under these cir- 
cumstances, and considering that the two Dioceses 
of Connecticut and Maryland (Eastcn being formed 
out of Maryland and partaking of its usage) are 
two of our oldest Dioceses, our old historic Di- 
oceses, and a great majority of those represented 
now on this floor are comparatively mere upstarts 
in comparison with them. I think it is exceedingly 
out of character for us to try to force upon those 
Dioceses a change which they do not desire, and 
have refused to accept of their own free motion. 

One other word. In each of these Dioceses, if I 
am rightly informed, the members of the Standing 
Committee, although consisting of clergy only, are 
elected by the votes of both orders. It needs a con 
current vote by both orders before any man can be 
elected on the Standing Committee ; and if the laity 
are satisfied with that mode of representation, 
there is no call upon the pa.rt of any one 
else that I can see to interfere, and 
I would especially desire to put down the spirit 
of meddling where it is none of our business, where 
there is no call to meddle, and where we had better 
consider the old question of Lord Melbourne. 
When people wanted to bring in changes for which 
there was no use, he would always say, " Can't you 
let it alone ? " I move to lay the whole subject on 
the table. 

The PRESIDENT. The hour for recess has arrived, 
but if the House is ready, the Chair will put the ques- 
tion on the motion to lay on the table. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Rev, Dr, Wat- 
son desires me to withdraw the motion, and I do so. 
Rev, Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I will 
renew it in a moment, I desire to express my own 
dissent, as a member of the Committee on Canons, 
from the measure reported. It does seem to be an 
unnecessary interference with Dioceses. If the laity 
of any Diocese choose to express their will through 
the clergy of the Diocese, I maintain that they have 
a perfect right to do so. It is no repression of the 
voice of the laity whatever, but simply their way 
of being represented. Now, as bound, I renew the 
motion to lay on the table. 
Mr, SMITH, of South Carolina. Let me ask the 
I gentleman who made the motion to withdraw it for 
i a moment that I may renew the motion for indefi- 
j nite postponement, for this reason : a question laid 
on the table may be called up, and I do not think 
this House should hold that power in their hands in 
regard to the matter. 
The PRESIDENT. This will certainly not be 
! called up again at this session. The question is on 
1 the motion to lay the subject on the table. 
The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The House wiU now take a 
' recess imtil two o'clock. 



416 



At two o'clock the House resumed its session. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I move that the House 
agree to the report of the Joint Committee of Con- 
ference in regard to the disagreement between the 
two Houses in reference to an amendment of Sec- 
tion 1, of Canon 1, of Title III. 

The report was read as follows : 
The Joint Committee of Conference, appointed to 
consider the disagreement betweeii the two Houses 
in regard to an amendment to Section 1, of Canon 
1, Title III., proposed by the House of Deputies, 
respectfully report that they recommend the adop- 
tion of the proposed amendment, with the altera- 
tion of the words ' each House of the General Con- 
vention,' to 'the House of Deputies,' as expressed 
in the following resolution: 

" Resolved, That the following clause be added to 
Section 1, of Canon 1, of Title III. , of the Digest : 

" [4] The Rules and Orders of the House of Dep- 
uties shall be in force in the ensuing General Con- 
vention until the organization thereof, and until 
they be amended or repealed by the said House." 

The resolution was agreed to. 

ABSENCE OF CLERGYMEN. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary wiU report the 
next business on the Calendar. 

The SECRETARY. The next business on the 
Calendar is the followmg resolution, reported from 
the Committee on Canons : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be dis- 
charged from the considera,tion of the proposed 
amendment to Canon 7 of Title II. : ' Of a Clergy- 
man absenting himself from his Diocese.' " 

The resolution was agreed to. 

TESTIMONIALS OF BISHOPS-ELECT. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing resolution, reported by the Committee on 
Canons : 

"Resolved, That the subject of procedure of this 
House, in its action upon the testimonials of Bishops- 
elect, be referred to a Special Committee of five, to 
consider and report to the next General Conven- 
tion." 

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I move that 
that be laid on the table. It is too important a sub- 
ject to be acted on now. 

The motion was agreed to. 

STUDENTS IN SEMINARIES. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing resolution from the Committee on Canons : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be dis- 
charged from consideration of the subject of pas- 
toral charge of students in Theological Semi- 
naries," etc. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

INHIBITION OF ACCUSED MINISTERS. 

The next business on the Calendar was the fol- 
lowing resolution reported by the Committee on 
Canons : 

" Resolved, That this House do not concur with the 
House of Bishops in the amendment of Canon 2, 
Title II., proposed to this House in Message No. 40, 
from the House of Bishops, relating to the inhibi- 
tion of an accused minister." 

The resolution was agreed to. 

MISSIONARY BISHOPS. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing resolution, reported by the Committee on Can- 
ons: 

"Resolved (the Blouse of Bishops concurring). 
That Clause 1, of Section 17, of Canon 13, of Title 
I., is hereby amended by the insertion of the words: 



' On the written request of twelve members to the 
same,' after the word ' shaU,' in the sixth line, so as 
to read as follows : 

"Sec. 17. [1.] If during the recess of the Gen- 
eral Convention, and more than six months previous 
to its session, any vacancy arise, either by death, 
resignation, or other cause, in the office of any Mis- 
sionary Bishop of this Church (whether domestic or 
foreign), the House of Bishops shall, on the written 
request of twelve members of the same, be convened 
by the Presiding Bishop, or, in case of his death, by 
the Bishop who, according to the rules of the House 
of Bishops, is to preside at the next General Con- 
vention ; and thereupon may proceed to fiU any and 
every such "vacancy that may then exist, by electing 
a suitable person or persons to be a Bishop or Bish- 
ops of this Church, to exercise Episcopal functions 
within the district, place, country, territory, station, 
or jurisdiction, where such vacancy or vacancies 
may exist ; and in case of such election, they shall, 
by the Presiding Bishop, or by some person or per- 
sons specially appointed, communicate the fact of 
such election to the Standing Committees of the 
Churches in the different Dioceses ; and each Stand- 
ing Committee that shall consent to the proposed 
consecration shall forward the evidence of such 
consent to the Presiding Bishop, or Bishop aforesaid. 
And if the major number of the Standing Commit- 
tees shall consent to the proposed consecration, the 
Presiding or other Bishop as aforesaid shall forward 
copies of the evidence of such consent to each Bishop 
of this Church then within the hmits of the United 
States ; and if a majority of such Bishops consent 
to the consecration, the Presiding Bishop or Bishop 
aforesaid, with any two Bishops, or any three Bish- 
ops to whom he may communicate the testimonials, 
may proceed to perform the same." 

Mr. OTIS, of lUinois. That is an important 
amendment to the Canon in respect to a Special 
Session of the House of Bishops during the 
recess of the General Convention. As it now 
stands, it rests with the option of the Senior Bishop 
to call a Special Session. This Canon provides that 
if any twelve members of the House request the 
Senior Bishop to call a session, it shall be called. 
Important property rights are liable to be involved 
and other important matters ; and it should not be 
left to the discretion of one Bishop whether the va- 
cancy be filled or put off to the next General Con- 
vention. Therefore, it is wisely provided that any 
twelve Bishops may require the meeting of the 
House of Bishops to fill a vacancy in the office of 
Missionary Bishop. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Does it not now 
read "shall " ? 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. It is 
amended to read " may." 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Then it is not 
to be convened imless twelve members request it ? 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. There 
must be twelve to make the request. It is a very 
good amendment. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

ACTION OF HOUSE OF BISHOPS. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing resolution reported by the Committee on 
Canons : 

" Resolved, That this House do not concur with 
the House of Bishops in the amendment to Section 
3, of Canon 13, Title I., proposed to this House in 
Message No. 42, and relating to the consent of the 
House of Bishops to the consecration of Bishops- 
elect. " 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I hope that will 
be explained. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. The 
object of the Committee was to avoid making it 



417 



dependent upon the vote of the Foreign Missionary 
Bishops to affect the majority. 
The resohition was agreed to. 

STATUS OF MISSIONARY BISHOPS. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing resolution reported by the Committee on Ca- 
nons: 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the subject of 
the status of Missionary Bishops," etc. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I express 
my gratitude to the Committee on Canons for 
bringing that matter up so promptly for considera- 
tion. [Laughter.] 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. We did 
the best we could. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS. 

The next business on the Calendar was the follow- 
ing resolutions, reported by the Committee on 
Canons : 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be 
discharged from the consideration of the subject of 
the testimonials of candidates for Holy Orders," 

The resolution was agreed to 

The PRESIDENT. The Calendar is through 
with. 

THANKS TO PRESIDENT CRAIK. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. There is a 
duty devolving on me, of offering a few resolutions 
of courtesy. I now offer the following : 

"Resolved, That the thanks of this House be pre- 
sented to the Rev. Dr. Craik, its presiding officer, 
in testimony of its warm appreciation of his emi- 
nent services during the protracted sessions of this 
body, discharging, as he has done, the difficult du- 
ties of his office with singular fidelity. " 

I ask the Secretary to put the question on this reso- 
lution. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I suggest that 
the question be put by a rising vote. 

The SECRETARY. Those in favor of the reso- 
lution will rise. 

The resolution was unanimously agreed to. 

SYNODS OF DIOUESES. 

A message (No. 104) from the House of Bishops 
announced that it did not concur in the Message 
No. 109, from the House of Deputies, appointing a 
Joint Commission as to needed legislation for the 
formation of Synods of Dioceses, for the reason 
that, at this late day of the session, it is impossible 
for the House to give the matter due consideration. 

TITLE OF HOUSE OF DEPUTIES, 

A message (No. 105) from the House of Bishops 
announced that that Hovise had concurred in Mes- 
sage No. 113 from the House of Deputies, concern- 
ing the striking out of words " clerical and lay " in 
the Journal. 

ITALIAN PRAYER-BOOK. 

A message (No. 106) from the House of Bishops 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolution: 

"Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring). 
That a joint committee be appointed to prepare and 
report to the next General Convention a correct re- 
vision of the Prayer-Book in the Italian Lansruage. " 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I move 
that we concur in that message, and I would suggest 
the names of the Rev. Dr. Nevin, the Rev. C. 
Souder, and Professor F. T, Nash as that commis- 
sion. 

The motion was agreed to. 



THANKS TO SECRETARY PERRY. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I offer the 
following- resolution: 

' ' Resolved, That this House desires to express its 
sense of the valuable sei'vices of its distinguished 
Secretary, and hereby offers to him, with theii* salu- 
tations, a unanimous vote of thanks." 

The resolution was adopted unanimously. 

THANKS TO REV. DR. MEAD. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I now offer 
the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That regretting the absence from the 
later deliberations and closing services of the Con- 
vention of Rev. Dr. Mead, Chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Canons, the venerable and revered Nestor 
of this House, we would hei-eby place on record our 
testimony to the importance of the great labors he 
has performed, and the invaluable services he has 
rendered as a member of this Body to the Church 
at large. 

"Resolved, That after membership in sixteen 
consecutive General Conventions of this Church un- 
til now he is verging on four-score years, we feel 
it fitting that a record should be made of the grati- 
tude of this Church and the love of the members of 
this House to him, who we certify is eminently 
worthy of the one and the other." 

The PRESIDENT. It would be eminently proper, 
much more than the Vote you took a little while 
ago, that this resolution should be adopted by a ris- 
ing vote. Those in favor of the resolution will 
rise. 

The resolution was unanimously adopted. 

THE FINAL ADJOURNMENT. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I offer the 
following resolution : 

"Resolved, That when this House adjourn this 
afternoon it be to half -past seven this evening, to 
Calvary Church (Twenty-first Street and Fourth 
Avenue), and that after the religious services, includ- 
ing the reading of the Pastoral Letter, this House do 
stand finally adjourned." 

The object of the resolution is to avoid the offer- 
ing of the resolution after the religious services this 
evening. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Before that 
resoiuoion is acted upon, I wisli the attention of the 
Convention, I wish to move the reconsideration of 
a vote which was taken some time since, naming 
Calvary Church as the place where the final ser- 
vices are to be held. The rector of the Church of 
the Holy Trinity, of this city, very Idndly offered 
us, a few days ago, the use of his church for these 
services, and the only ground on which we de- 
clined to accept his offer was that we preferred to 
remain in this church, where we have held 
our sessions. I think it must be felt by eveiy mem- 
ber of the Convention that something is due as an 
act of courtesy to the Rector of the Church of the 
Holy Trinity, if we propose to leave here and go 
somewhere else. I move, therefore, a reconsidera- 
tion of that vote, for the purpose of moving that we 
have our closing services in the Church of the Holy 
Trinity. 

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I will merely 
state that that is impossible. We concurred 
with the House of Bishops in fixing Calvary Church, 
and notice was sent to the afternoon papers. It is 
published, and it will be impossible to make the 
change now. I agree with the reverend gentleman 
that something should be done in the matter he men- 
tions, but the Rector of the Church of the Holy 
Trinity was not within reach at the moment; it 
was a very sudden thing ; the House of Bishops 
thought that as it was election day they could not 
well come here to-night, and bhey then thought of 



418 



Calvary Chui'ch, and telegraphed and obtained per- 
mission to use it, and came to us, and we concurred. 
I do think that something should be said to the 
rector of the church who made the previous offer. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. The rector of 
the Church of the Holy Trinity is present in this 
building, and has said that we can have the use of 
his church most certainly. 

Rev. Dr. FARRINGTON, of New Jersey. I call 
attention to the fact that we have already taken ac- 
tion that the closing services should be here, and 
this other resolution was introduced without any 
motion to reconsider. It seems to me that, accord- 
ing to strict parliamentary usage, the resolution 
agreeing to go to Calvary Church was not properly 
presented to this House, and was not really passed. 
There was no reconsideration of the previous 
vote. 

Rev. Dr. GEER, of New York. I wish to say 
that the New York delegation were quite unaware 
that this action was to take place. Tnis morning I 
was consulted by one who came to me representing 
the very kind desire of the rector of Calvary Church 
that we should hold our closing services there, I 
objected, and said that if we left this Church 
we should accept the invitation of the rector 
of the Church of the Holy Trinity. I was in 
favor of remaining in this church, and was 
instrumental in causing, as far as I could, 
the rejection of the offer from the rector 
of the Church of the Holy Trinity, because I 
felt that it was due that we should hold our con- 
cluding services here. I was surprised on coming 
in to-day to find that action had been taken to go 
from this Church, which I regretted ver.y much, and 
to go to Calvary Church, i fully agree with the 
proposition of my colleague, that if we are to go from 
this Church, we should under the circumstance go 
to the Church of the Holy Trinity in Forty-second 
street. 

Rev. Dr. HASKINS, of Long Island. In this 
matter it seems to me we must follow the House of 
Bishops. The House of Bishops have chosen their 
place, and let us obey their voice. 

Mr. WELSH, of ir'ennsylvania. Had the rector 
of the Church of the Holy Trinity been here at the 
time, undoubtedly the Bishops would have selected 
that Church ; but it was a very sudden thing ; it was 
about the time of giving notices for the afternoon 
papers when the House of Bishops sent their action 
nere, and we concurred with them rather than draw 
them here on election-day when they did not want 
to come. All arrangements have been made for Cal- 
vary Church, as to music and in other respects ; and 
I will take this occasion to say to the members of the 
Convention that the middle aisle is reserved for 
them, the front seats for Deputies, and the rear ones 
for their families and f rienas. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Long Island. I am 
told that there is abundance of time to correct the 
notice in the papers, and that there is nothing really 
in the way of our meeting in Holy Trinity Church 
this evening ; and considering what has been said 
in regard to the unanimous wish of this Body and 
the Deputation of the Diocese of New York, it seems 
to me we shall be guilty of a great discourtesy if we 
do not accept the invitation of the Church of the 
Holy Trinity. 

Rev. Dr. DB KOS^EN, of Wisconsin. I wish to 
add a word. I heard the other day this invitation 
brought in from the rector of Holy Trinity Church. 
We tuen all agreed that it was best to have our 
closing services here; but when we cannot have 
them here, or when it is desirable to the House of 
Bishops to have them elsewhere, it seems to me 
eminently proper that we should accept the invita- 
tion so courteously extended to us, because I believe 
when invitations are extended it is always the way 



of gentlemen to take the first one that comes. That 
came to us, and came to us in a very handsome 
manner some days ago. Inasmuch as we are told 
that it is not too late to perform this act of courtesy, 
I hope that we may do it. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Is it pos- 
sible to make the change of notice for the papers in 
time ? 

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I am told it can 
be corrected in the last edition. The fourth edition 
of the afternoon papers will come out in time. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. If such is 
the case, I think it is clearly our duty to reconsider 
the resolution adopted this morning, and go to the 
Church of the Holy Trinity as a matter of common 
decency to the rector of that church, who has 
courteously pi-olfered the use of it to us ; and that 
can be done if it is still in time to send notice to the 
papers. I would say, while I am up, that if it is 
not done, and if it is found to be impossible, I think 
it should be the duty of the gentlemen who repi-esent 
that Committee here to frame a resolution thanking 
the rector of the Church of the Holy Trinit/, and 
explaining the reasons why the invitation was not 
accepted. 

Rev. Dr. SMEDES, of North Carolina. Ai^e we 
sure we can now get the Church of the Holy Trin- 
ity? ["Yes."] 

The SECRETARY. I am authorized by the Agent 
of the Associated Press to state that if he can com- 
mand the services of one of the pages here, as of 
course he can, he can have the correction put in the 
afternoon papers in time. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Then I insist 
on my motion to save time. 

Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. I 
will state that information has gone abroad 
throughout the city that our services are to be held 
in Calvary Church, and it would lead to infinite 
confusion if v/e depart from the order which we 
have already taken. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
move that the deputation from New IsTork confer 
informally with the House of Bishops, and express 
the wish that we hold the services in the Church of 
the Holy Trinity, if agreeable to them ; and if they 
agree to that we will make it all right. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion 
of Mr. Montgomery. 

The motion was agreed to. 

RESIDENCE OF THEOLOGICAL PROFESSORS. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of South Carolina. I should 
like to call the attention of the Convention to a mat- 
ter which came up on the fifteenth day of the ses- 
sion, Friday, October 23, with reference to the can- 
onical residence of Professors connected with Theo- 
logical Seminaries. Those w^ho ha,ve The Daily 
Churchman and will turn to page 103 wiU find the 
matter as it was then presented. Allow me to read 
it. There was reported by the Committee on 
Canons this resolution : 

' ' Resolved, That this House concurs in the 
amendment of Subsection 4, Section 7, of Canon 12, 
Title I., proposed by the House of Bishops in Mes- 
sage No. 18." 

The Canon is on page 55 of the Digest. 

Judge Sheffey on the part of the Committee re- 
marked: 

' ' i he Canon as it stands provides that it shall be 
the duty of all ministers to obtain and present let- 
ters of transfer as above, whenever they remove 
from one Diocese or Missionary Jurisdiction to an- 
other, with the exception of Professors in the Gen- 
eral Theological Seniinary, ofiicers of the Board of 
Missions, and professors in colleges and universities 
which are established by the concurrent action of 
two or more Dioceses associated for that purpose. 



419 



The obiect is that the professors of the University 
of the South shall not be registered as ministers of 
the Diocese of Tennessee, but shall retain their 
domicile and the right of ministerial domicile in 
their respective Dioceses." 

In belialf of the Deputy from Minnesota [Rev. 
Dr. Eadney], I would move an amendment. The 
matter was brought to an end, I think, irregularly. 
It was not acted upon, but dropped just there. 
There was an amendment further, drawoi up by 
Judge Sheffey, and which presented the subject- 
matter in these words : 

"But whenever a Diocese is divided into two or 
more Dioceses, any Professor in a, Theological Semi- 
nary therein which is governed by trustees from 
every part of such original Dioceses, may select to 
which of said Dioceses he sliall belong, and shall not 
be obliged to obtain and present the above-men- 
tioned letters of transfer. " 

I would ask lea,ve, if it be not in order otherv/ise, 
to bring up this matter and introduce the amend- 
ment. 

The PRESIDENT. Is there objection? The 
Chair hears none. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. What I 
wish to do is to insert in the original Cannon an 
amendment to the effect that Professors in Theo- 
logical Seminaries, w^here the Diocese has been di- 
vided, shall not be obliged to present these letters of 
transfer in the words I before read. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop- 
tion of an amendment to the Canon proposed by 
the Rev. Dr. Watson. 

The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution 
as amended was agreed to. 

THANKS TO POSTMASTER, ETC. 

Mr. DAYMUDE, of Iowa. Some resolutions of 
thanks have been passed. I offer the following : 

"Resolved, Tha.t the thanks of this House are 
hereby tendered to the Hon. Thomas L. James, 
Postmaster of this city, and to the Hon. WiUiam 
Orton, President of the W estern Union Telegraph 
Company, for mail and telegraphic facilities pro- 
vided for the use of the members of the Conven- 
tion, and also to Messrs. Chas. Crawford and G-eo. 
W. Lockhart for their efficient agency in these 
matters. " 

The resolution was agreed to. 

FINAL ADJOURNMENT. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. The resolu- 
tion I offered in reference to the adjournment this 
evening, held in obeyance, I suggest that we pass it, 
leaving the name of the church blank. I move that 
the resolution be passed leaving the name of the 
Church blank, to be filled up as the House may 
hereafter order. 

"Resolved, That when this House adjourn this 
afternoon, it be to half -past seven o'clock this even- 
ing, at Church, and that after the religious ser- 
vices, including the reading of the Pastoral Letter, 
this House do stand finally adjourned." 

The resolution was agreed to. 

PUBLICATION OF PASTORAL LETTER. 

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I now 
offer the following : 

"Resolved, That the Secretary of this House 
take order for the publication of the Pastoral Letter, 
and for its immediate distribution to the clergy of 
the Church." 

The resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. McWHORTER, of Central New York. I ask 
whether the amended Digest is published with the 
Journal as of course, or whether a resolution is 
necessary ? 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary wiU state. 



The SECRETARY. I will state that the resolu- 
tion reported by the Committee on the reduction of 
the size and expense of the Journal provides that 
no reduction shall take place so as to prevent there 
being sent to every clergyman and candidate for 
Orders a copy of the Constitution and Canon of the 
Church. In regard to the Pastoral Letter, I will 
state that measures have already been taken 
whereby it will be in the hands of every clergyman 
of this Church, except those in Oregon aud Califor- 
nia, before next Sunday. 

" CHURCHMAN" DEBATES. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
offer the following resolution, which is a copy of one 
passed at the last Convention: 

" Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to 
procure from Messrs. M. H. Mallory & Co. copies 
of the bound volume of the debates of this House 
sufficient to place ten in the archives of the Conven- 
tion, to send one to each Bishop of the Church, one 
to each of the Dioceses, one to the Library of each 
Theological Seminary and College of the Church, 
and ten additional copies to be presented to the sev- 
eral Bishops and others recently visiting the Con- 
vention. " 

The resolution was agreed to unanimously. 

SEATS OF MEMBERS. 

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts, of- 
fered the following resolution, which was agreed 
to : 

"Resolved, That it is the sense of this House 
that the seats of the various deputations to the 
General Convention ought to be assigned by lot. " 

CLOSING EXERCISES. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I have no 
knowledge on the subject of a message from the 
House of Bishops in regard to the closing services, 
i but some of my colleagues have understood that we 
are to receive some such communication. I think 
it should have been here hj this time if it were 
true that v/e were to receive anj^. I will simply, 
therefore, state that the purpose of the change was 
solely on reasons of convenience. The Bishops have 
had offers of several churches in the city, and they 
concluded to go to Calvary Church because it is 
central, and to leave this Church because they under- 
stand that, this being the night of the general election 
day, we might be disturbed in our devotions in this 
place. 

Rev. Dr. AYRAULT, of Central New York. I 
move, then, that the name of Calvary Church be in- 
serted in the blank left in the resolution of the De- 
puty from Long_Island. 

The PRESIDENT. That will be done as a mat- 
ter of course. 

COMMISSION ON THE CONSTITUTION. 

A message (No. 107) from the House of Bishops 
announced the adoption by that House of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

' 'Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring). That 
a Joint Committee be appointed to report to the next 
General Convention on the expediency of creating a 
joint commission to revise the Constitution of this 
Church, and also to report a plan for the construc- 
tion and direction of such Commission, provided 
they shall approve of such a measure." 

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I move that 
we concur. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. That subject was 
before the Committee on Amendments to the Con- 
stitution, and expressly reported against unani- 
mously, and the report approved by this House. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Permit me to 
correct the gentleman. It was not in regard to a 



420 



committee to enquire into the propriety of appoint- 
ing a commission. What was before this Hoiise 
and what was voted down was a proposition 
that we were ready now to go into the 
appointment of a comniission ; but this proposition 
is simply to raise a Committee to report to the next 
General Convention upon the propriety of raising 
a joint commission, and if the report be in favor of 
the propriety of such a commission, then to report 
a plan for raising it. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I move that we 
non-concur in the message of the House of Bishops. 
It is quite too late to act now. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. The Diocese of 
Albany, to which I belong, passed a resolution 
unanimously in favor of that idea, and instructed 
her Deputies on this floor to do everything in their 
power to see that it was carried into effect. As this 
is a Joint Commission, one that v/ill have 
time enough, we need be in no danger. 
I confess I do not see the consistency with 
which our Rt. Rev. Fathers sent us down 
a few minutes ago a message that they 
could not appoint a joint commission in regard to 
Diocesan Synods because it Avas so late, and then 
send down this other thing, wliich is a much larger 
question, and really involves the other. That is an 
inconsistency for them to settle. I think it is a very 
happy inconsistency, especially the latter part of it, 
and 1 hope therefore we shall concur with their re- 
commendation. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I hope we shall 
not concur. It involves the question whether our 
Constitution shall grow naturally by accretion in the 
mode prescribed by the Constitution, or whether by 
some new patent mode, by a Commission, the 
whole structure is to be pulled down from top to 
bottom. That whole question was attentively con- 
sidered on our Committee, and it .deserves the 
gravest consideration of this House whether we 
shall take the first initial step towards the demoli- 
tion of our hberties. 

The PRESIDENT. The first question is on the 
motion that we do not concur. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The first mo- 
tion is to concur. If we do not concur, we non- 
concur. The motion was first made that we concur 
in the action of the House of Bishops. 

The PRESIDENT. The second motion was made 
to non-concur. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The motion to 
concur is the proper one to put, and, of course, if it 
is voted down then we non-concur necessarily. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will put the ques- 
tion on the motion to concur with the message just 
read from the House of Bishops. 

The motion to concur was not agreed to, there 
being on a division, ayes, 45 ; noes, 48. 

CLOSING SERVICES. 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I am requested 
to read the following resolution adopted by the 
House of Bishops : 

" Resolved, That v/hile this House is grateful for 
the courteous offers which they have received from 
divers rectors in this city of their respective 
churches, for the closing services of this Conven- 
tion, they adhere to their motion with respect to 
Calvary Church for rea.sons of convenience." 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
think it would be well to enter this resolution on the 
minutes. 

The PRESIDENT. That would be well enough. 

PREPARATIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT. 

Rev. Dr. BURGES, of Massachusetts. I move 
that a committee be appointed to inform the House 
of Bishops that we have completed our business and 
await messages from them. 



The motion was agreed to, and the President aj)- 
pointed the Rev. Dr. Shelton, of Western New 
York, the Rev. Dr. Burgess, of Massachusetts, and 
Mr. Pierrepont, of Long Island, as the Commit- 
tee. 

PRESIDENT CRAIK'S ADDRESS. 

The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, I suppose it would 
be well for me now, on behalf of my colleagues, the 
Officers of this House, to return you our thanks for 
your very complementary resolutions, and I cannot 
do so very well without expressing my own feelings 
of congratulations to you upon the patience and 
disinterestedness with which you have come up to 
your duty as. expected by the Church, nobly, as it 
seems to me, you have done it. 

There is an impression abroad that the Conven- 
tion has been wasting its time because it has not 
been providing for the conversion of men for im- 
mediate action upon the mass of the community, 
forgetting that this is a legislative body, 
and that men cannot be converted by 
canons or joint resolutions ; but you have 
done in that same direction noble work. 
You have elected five Missionary Bishops 
providing that this pastoral and missionary work, 
shall be done in the future far more efficiently than 
it has ever been done before ; and this surely is a 
subject of most warm congratulation for the future 
of the Church, and for the recollection of that which 
we have been permitted to do here. 

Then, a^ain, for the better and truer execution 
of the divine work of the Church— the conversion 
of the world — you have, with a full recognition of 
the essential importance of zeal and enthusiasm as 
factor in that work, a.nd with a full recognition of 
that conscience in a sacred thing, determined, 
nevertheless, that zeal without loiowledge, and con- 
science without capacity to distinguish between 
truth and error, are not special qualifications for 
the ministry of this Church, for the office of teach- 
ers of the people. And again, you have maintained 
the broad toleration of this Church, a Church, as we 
hold, grandly comprehensive, like our Divine Mas- 
ter, tolerant of human infirmity, and of the inevi- 
table confusions of the human mind ; but you have 
likewise unmistakably resolved that false doctrine 
or the approach to it will not be encouraged, or en- 
dorsed directly or indirectly by this Church. 

Now then, with these great questions settled, we 
go forth to the real practical work we are to meet, 
and in the power of the Holy Ghost, to overcome 
the old and the everliving and active external ene- 
mies of truth, enemies of God and of man alike — to 
meet and overcome the world, the fiesh, and the 
1 devil, to set forward the salvation of all men. This 
is the grand practical work to which we go forth 
now, stronger I believe, more efficient, more re- 
solved, and more earnest than we have ever been 
before. 

Rev. Mr. LEVERETT, of Central Pennsylvania. 
Mr. Secretary, I move that the address of the Pres- 
ident be entered on the Journal. 

The Secretary put the question on the motion, and 
it was agreed to unanimously. 

ACTION OF THE BISHOPS. 

Rev. Dr. SHELTON, of Western New York. The 
Committee appointed to wait upon the House of 
Bishops have performed that duty, and the House 
of Bishops replied that they were not exactly ready 
to adjourn. They will be ready probably in the 
course of fifteen or twenty minutes. 

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. They will 
send us down some more business in fifteen or 
twenty minutes. 

FOREIGN CONGREGATION. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. There was an 



421 



amendment to the Constitution proposed in Message 
No. 97 of the House of Bishops sent down in my ab- 
sence 3*estei'daT and referred to the Committee 
on Constitutional Amendments. Tlie Committee 
on Constitutional Amendments has grown " small 
by degrees," and as it will be seen from tliose who 
are left, my brothei- from Texas for example, " beau- 
tifully less.'' There is no possibility of action there- 
fore upon that or any other report. The proposed 
change is by adding an Article 2, which is a very 
valuable and very important article, and I have no 
doubt it will excite a great deal of serious atten- 
tion. It seems to me we have nothing to do except 
to not occur. The article is one which proposes 
that persons of foreign race and tongue may have 
a certain coherency or imity in connection with 
this Church, and I suppose it will be a very valua- 
ble provision when it is passed. If the Convention 
is prepared to spend time in considering it, I would 
make a motion either to concur or not to concur, as 
the House chooses, and I think we can only not 
concur, and I would offer a resolution that we do 
not concur in Message No. 97, 

Mr, BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh, A motion to not 
concur is action. We are not prepared to approve 
or disapprove it at this time, and therefore let us j 
lay it on the table. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Very well, I 
move that it be laid on the table. | 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. I beg to say that i 
it is a very important and desirable amendment, 
and if we had time we might pass it, and omit the i 
form of going thi'ough the Committee. Three of us 
have agreed to it on the Committee ; all the mem- 
bers of the Committee who are here approve it. 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I caU for the reading of 

it. 

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh, It is too serious 
a matter to be acted on now. This Chm-ch is a na- j 
tional Church, and is composed only of the people , 
belonging to this nation, I am not yet prepared to 
say that a congregation in a foreign land should be ' 
received into our Church. 

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. We have popula- j 
tions speaking a variety of languages in this 
country. It is to bring in those large bodies of for- 
eigners speedilv and promptly. ! 

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I 
should hke to enquire what there is in the Constitu- I 
tion forbidding it now ? Is there anything saying 
that they shall worship in the English language ? j 

MESSAGES FROM THE BISHOPS. ' 

A message (No. 108) was received from the House 
of Bishops asking for a Committee of Conference on ; 
Message No. 114 of the House of Deputies on the 
subject of the inhibition of an accused minister, and 
appointing as the conferees on its part the Bishop 
of North Carolina and the Bishop of Ohio. 

A message (No. 109) from the House of Bishops an- j 
nounced its non-concurrence in Message No. 118 of i 
the House of Deputies amending Message No, 13 of : 
the House of Bishops relative to abandonment of | 
the ministry, 

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. As to Message No. 108, the | 
point is this : The House of Bishops ask that where 
a minister is put on his trial for immoral conduct, 
the Bishop of the Diocese shaU have the right to , 
suspend him from the exercise of his olEce until he : 
has been tried. We think that is punishing him in i 
advance before he is found guilty, and it involves a 
very serious question. The Committee on Canons i 
reported against it. It seems to prejudge the case, ' 
It is a principle which has never been introduced 
into our Church in this country. It does exist in 
the Romish Church and some other Churches, I am 
not certain whether the power exists in the Eng- 
lish Church or not. The view taken by the Com- ' 



mittee on Canons was that it was prejudging the 
case to a certain extent, and that it was punishing 
a man before he v.-as found guilty. We noncon- 
\ curred in the previous action of the House of 
Bishops, aud they now ask for a Committee of Con- 
ference. I suppose we oiight to agree to the re- 
quest for a Committee of Conference. 

The PRESIDENT. Of course. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. I should like to 
ask one question before we act further on this mat- 
ter : Whether it w'ould not be in the i^ower of a 
Bishop under those circumstances to inhibit the 
man, and then to embarrass or delay the trial so 
that it should never come off ; whether tlie resiilt 
might not be that a man might be suspended simply 
by the act of the Bishop, without any chance to be 
tried ? 

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. There is an- 
other question in relation to that."^ Perhaps some 
legal gentleman can answer it. It is whether the 
Bishop would not render himself liable to prosecu- 
tion for libel in a case of that sort? It is the most 
extraordinary proceeding ever heard of in 
any legislative body whatever, to propose that 
a man shall be condemned before he is tried, 
cut off from the exercise of the privileges of his 
office, simply because somebody may suspect him 
of something, charge him with something, and, be- 
fore he has had an opportmiity to be heard, that he 
shall have the punishment inflicted upon him of 
suspension from the duties of his office. I hope, 
sir, that this message will not be concurred in, and 
that no committee of conference will be appointed 
looking to any such legislation as this. 

Mr. ROCKWELL, of Central Pennsylvania. It 
seems to me we have no right to say that we shall 
refuse the conference the Bishops ask for. They may 
have some other proposition to make, and it would 
seem to me entirely proper for us to agree to the 
conference. 

The PRESIDENT, I think, according to the 
usages of the House, we are bound to appoint a 
Committee of Conference when it is asked for. 

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. I have no ob- 
jection to a Committee of Conference. 

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that a Committee 
of Conference be appointed. 

The motion was agreed to, and the President ap- 
pointed Rev. Dr. Watson, of North Carolina, and 
Mr. Otis, of Illinois, as the conferees on the part of 
the House of Deputies. 

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Would it be prop- 
er to instruct the Committee ? 

The PRESIDENT. I think not. 

Mr. OTIS, of niiuois. I wish the Chair would 
double the number, Dr, Watson and myself have 
alreadv expressed oiu- opinions. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair wiU add Rev. Dr. 
Hall, of Long Island, and Mr. Burgwin, of Pitts- 
burgh, to the Committee. 

THANKS TO ASSISTANT SECRETARIES, 

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. I wish leave to 
add to the resolution passed a short time ago — what I 
think was omitted by oversight — thanks to the Sec- 
retary and his assistants. 

The PRESIDENT. I thought that was provided 
for. 

Rev, Dr, SCHENCK, of Long Island. No; the 
resolution I offered was especially in reference to 
Dr. Perry, I should be glad to have any one else 
offer an additional resolution. 

Mr. SMITH, of South CaroKna. I move that the 
thanks of this body be returned to the Assistant Sec- 
retaries for the care and fidelity with which they 
have discharged their duties. 

The motion was agreed to unanimously. 



422 



ABANDONMENT OF THE COMMUNION. 

A message (No. 110) was received from the House 
of Bishops as follows : 

"The House of Bishops informs the House of 
Deputies that it non-concurs in Message No. 110 of 
the House of Deputies amending Message No. 29 
from the House of Bishops as to the amendment of 
Canon 8, Title II. , and asks for a Committee of Confer- 
ence ; and the House of Bishops has appointed as 
s:ch Committee the Bishops of North Carolina, New 
York, and Ohio. 

On motion, a Committee of Conference was or- 
dered to be apT3ointed, and the President appointed 
Rev. Dr. Watson, of North Carolina ; Rev. Dr. Hall, 
of Long Island ; Mr. Otis, of Illinois, and Mr. Burgwin 
of Pittsburgh, the conferees on the part of the 
House of Deputies. 

A message (No. Ill) was received from the Plouse 
of Bishops, as follows : 

' ' The House of Bishops informs the House of Depu- 
ties that it concurs in Message No. Ill, from the 
House of Deputies, amending the amendment pro- 
posed by this House to Section 1, of CPvnon 2, of 
Title II. , of the Digest ; and also concurs in Message 
No. 100, from the House of Deputies, with this 
amendment, tha.t after the word ' specifying, ' be 
inserted the words 'as far as possible.' " 

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I move that 
that amendment be concurred in. 

The motion was agreed to. 

CONFERENCE REPORTS. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. The 
Committee of Conference report that upon the ques- 
tion of discipline, Canon 2 of Title II., where it was 
proposed to inhibit clergymen charged with crime 
or immorality pending the investigation of the mat- 
ter, that the Souse of Bishops recede from their ac- 
tion, leaving us to stand to our own. That is one 
report. 

The same Committee also report, in reference to 
Canon 8 of Title II. : 

" The Committee of Conference on the part of 
this House report that we concur with the House 
of Bishops in changing the word 'may,' in the 
thirteenth line of that Canon, to the word 'shall.' 
We had proposed an amendment that it should be 
' may ' instead of ' shall.' The House of Bishops in- 
sisted on retaining the word 'shall,' and our own 
Committee report in favor of concurring in their 
action, " 

Rev, Mr, HOPKINS, of Albany. Just as it stands 
now ? 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. Just as 
it stands now. 

Mr. BURG-WIN, of Pittsburgh. The Canon will 
come down from the Bishops in a few moments as 
they propose it, and thus by simply concurring 
with them, we have the Canon passed. Perhaps I 
ought to explain the matter further. 

The Bishops first sent down to us a Canon in which 
they made provision for inhibiting a minister dur- 
ing the pendency of his trial. The Committee on 
Canons reported and recommended the House to 
non-concur, and we did non-concur and sent that 
action to the Bishops. They sent down a message 
that they adhered to their previous action, and 
asked for the appointment of a Committee of Con- 
ference. We now have the report of that Com- 
mittee, advising us to adhere to our original action 
of non-concurrence with the Bishops. I move now 
that we approve of the action of the Committee of 
Conference, and adhere to our former vote of non- 
concurrence. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. On the other 
matter it is not necessary for us to act, because the 
Bishops will send down a Canon in a few minutes, 



according to the report we have agreed to, and then 
it will only be necessary to concur in their action. 

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I think 
it better that we put the question on this House re- 
ceding from its amendment substituting "may" 
for " shall" in Canon 8. of Title II. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will put the ques- 
tion on agreeing to the report of the Committee of 
Conference. 

The report was agreed to. 

A. message (No, 112) was received from the House 
of Bishops announcing its concurrence in the 
amendment proposed to Canon 8 of Title II. of the 
House of Deputies in Message No. 110 under the 
numbers 2 and 3 respectfully. 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will now read 
his rough minutes of to-day's session. 
The rough minutes were read and approved, 

CLOSE OF BUSINESS, 

Rev, Dr, POTTER (Secretary of the House of 
Bishops), appeared and delivered the following 
message : 

The Secretary of the House of Bishops is instruct- 
ed to say to the House of Deputies that the House of 
Bishops has no further communication to make to 
this House. 

Rev. Dr. GEER, of New York. I move that the 
House now take a recess to meet at Calvary Church 
at half -past seven o'clock this evening. 

The motion was agreed to, 

CLOSING SERVICES. 

The House resumed its session at half-past seven 
o'clock, at Calvary Chmxh. 

The Bishops having entered the Chancel in theii- 
Episcopal robes, Evening Prayer was said to the 
Psalter by the Right Rev. Benjamin Wistar Morris, 
D.D.. Bishop of Oregon. The Psalter was said by 
the Right Rev. T. B. Lyman, d.d.. Assistant 
Bishop of North Carolina. The First Lesson was 
read by the Right Rev. B. H. Paddock, d.d.. Bishop 
of Massachusetts. The Second Lesson v^^as read by 
the Right Rev. W. B. M. Howe, D.D., Bishop of 
South Carolina. The Creed and Prayers were 
said by the Right Rev. Edward R. Welles, d.d., 
Bishop of Wisconsin. 

The PRESIDINa BISHOP (Rt. Rev. Benjamin 
Bos worth Smith, d.d.. Bishop of Kentucky), My 
dear Brethren: The assembling of our General 
Contention never before elicited such warm atten- 
tion on the part of the faithful. It is very comfort- 
ing to know that it probably never was preceded by 
so many and such earnest prayers — prayers to 
God that His presence might be with us, and His 
blessing and peace rest upon us. If we can judge 
by fruits, we think we have reason to say that peace, 
harmony and good feeling have pervaded the pro- 
ceedings of both Houses to an extent never perhaps 
before experienced, although in this respect the 
blessings of God have always attended our delibera- 
tions. Upon this we congratulate you, my dear 
brethren, before we part, rendering thanks to Al- 
mighty God for His great mercies, and imploring 
you to continue to offer up your prayers, that a 
blessing may descend upon all the decisions at 
which we have arrived under His blessed guidance. 

In response to your request, a Pastoral Letter has 
been prepared, and will soon be delivered in yom- 
hearing by our brother, the Bishop of Easton. 
Since the preparation of it an event has occurred 
amongst us which we think will be memorable from 
this time forth— the election by the House of Bish- 
ops of a foreign Bishop of the colored race for the 
Island of Hayti, and we trust that in the good 
providence of God he wiU be consecrated to that 



423 



great work on next Sunday. We commend this ac- 
tion on the part of the House of Bishops and the 
candidate to your fervent prayers. 

Rt. Rev. ARTHUR CLEVELAND COXE, d.d., 
Bishop of Western New York. Brethren, the Pre- 
siding Bishop has desired me also to say that in his 
opinion the event which has just been announced is 
one of so extraordinary a character, and has been 
consummated under such peculiar circumstances, 
that it is desirable there should be a response— not a 
response in the way of a vote, but in the way of 
thanks to. Almighty God, that the Church has been 
brought, in the blessing of God, to that period 
m her history when it has become a 
Mother Chm-ch, and when one of the Afi-ican race, 
for the first time in all history, has been elected to 
be sent forth by her, to be the first Bishop of an 
Island Church, and of a people long afflicted and 
distressed. These were circumstances which, in his 
opinion, and that of many of his brethren, called 
for our thanksgi-sdng to Almighty God, and I pro- 
pose that it snail be offered in the form of the 
Gloria in Excelsis. Amen."] 

The Gloria in Excelsis was sung, after which the 
Pastoral Letter was read by the Right Rev. Henry 
Champlin Lay, d.d., ll.d.. Bishop of Easton, as 
follows : 

Brethren of the Clergy and Laity : 

Within the three years which have elapsed since 
the Bishops of the Church addressed you by Pastor- 
al Letter, not a few of our number have been I'e- 
leased from their earthly ministries. The late Bi- 
shops of Ohio, of Massachusetts, and of Illinois no 
longer assist in our counsels, wliich they were wont 
largely to influence. The late Bishop of Indiana, 
after years of suffering and weary siclaiess, has 
found rest ; while his brother of Iowa was taken 
suddenly av/ay by casualty in the midst of labors. 
The blind Bishop of South Carolina has passed, we 
humbly trust, from darkness into light, and Armi- 
tage, almost the Benjamin of our House, fell sweetly 
on sleep while it was yet day. Our Missionary 
Episcopate has lost in Bishop Randall one whose ca- 
reer was marked by energy and self-devotion. Af- 
rica has laid beneath the sod her Missionary Bishop 
Auer, just as he sought to set the battle in array, 
while we hear in the midst of our deliberations that 
the veteran Payne, who preceded him, has found his 
grave in Virginia beside the tomb of his fathers. 

Most suggestive is this roU-caU of departed breth- 
ren, so various in gifts and age, in the v/ork given 
them while they lived, and the manner of the death 
appointed them to die ? Very fragrant is the memo- 
ry of their Christian virtues, and welhassured 
om- hope that, in the day which shall try every 
man's work of what sort it is, they shall find mercy 
and the reward of grace. 

'The reports which have come before us afford 
gratifying evidence of even and steady progress 
throughout the whole Church. Besides the mere in- 
crease of numbers, there is expansion and growth 
in the agencies designed to seek Christ's sheep, and 
to keep tiiem from harm. New Dioceses have been 
erected, additional Missionary Bishops have been 
appointed. Christian Schools are estabUshed. To- 
day, more than ever in this Church, men and wo- 
men are rendering to God their personal service — 
not merely sending others, but going themselves to 
seek the lost, to instruct the young, and to nurse 
the sick. 

We desire in this place to express our sense of the 
exceeding value of the "woman's work "that has 
been done in the Church, and to encourage its 
more extended efforts. Whether in the way of or- 
ganized charitable associations, or of Deaconesses, 
or of Sisterhoods, it is now proven by actual results 
that women can do much in relieving the sorrowful, 



in reclaiming the vicious, and in upholding the 
hands of the heralds of the cross. We cheerfully 
recognize as helpers in the Lord the faithful women 
of our communion who show themselves succorers 
of many. 

We have, with the concurrence of the Clerical and 
Lay Deputies, restricted the jurisdiction of our 
Foreign Missionary Bishop at Yeddo to^the Empire 
of Japan, and we propose, if God will, to conse- 
crate another Bishop for the work in China, and yet 
another to preside over our Missions in Africa. 
Measures have been devised to place the infant 
Chui'ch in Hayti on an assured basis. At home, 
four new Missionary Episcopates have been created 
for Northern Texas, for Western Texas, for North- 
ern California, and for New Mexico and Arizona, 
All these deserve vigorous support, and will require 
enlarged contributions. It is ours to send the offi- 
cers to the front. It is yours to supply them help- 
ers, and to lade them with such things as are neces- 
sary to prosecute their work. And let us seek to 
realize that it is God the Holy Ghost alone who en- 
lightens, guides, sustains, and sanctifies the Church, 
and let us pray that our Churches at home and 
abroad, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the 
comfort of that Holy One, may be edified and mul- 
tiplied. 

Besides this external growth of the Church, 
we have reason to believe that there is a 
higher sense among many of our peo- 
ple of the saintliness of their Christian calling, 
and a yearning after a more complete conformity 
to the Likeness of the P-ure and Holy One. We 
note with much satisfaction the wide circulation of 
books by living writers which treat of the life of 
God in the soul of man, and the large demand for 
the well-worn manitals of devotion which h ave 
come down to us from our Anglican doctors. We 
may not forget that there is danger in the very rest- 
lessness of our religious activities, without these 
correctives of quiet meditation, and personal com- 
munion with the Father of all spirits. 
y^ In contrast with these encouragements stands 
out the fact that the supply of candidates for Holy 
Orders is now inadequate to meet the dem.and cre- 
ated by the organization of new congregations. 
And, more than this, but a small proportion of those 
who are admitted candidates are self-supporting. 
We entreat you to ponder well these pregnant 
statements. The priest's office is not coveted by 
the many ; nay, it is avoided by too many of the 
ingenuous and favored youth of the country, whose 
parents are able to give them an unrestricted choice 
of profession. 

If this indisposition to consecrate one's self or his 
children to the work of the ministry be due to the 
greed of wealth, to the delusion that the accumula- 
tion of an estate is, of right, the controlling in- 
fluence in the selection of our work on earth, then 
we declare to you, in the name of the living God, 
that this is covetousness, which is idolatry ; this is 
to pervert the great design of life, and to revolt 
against the very first condition of Christian ser- 
vice, "Make ready wherewith I may sup; and 
gird thyself and serve me, till I have eaten and 
drunken, and afterward thou shalt eat and drink. " 
Woe to the Christian youth who, as he stands 
where the paths of life diverge, enquires only which 
of these will lead most assuredly to gain and to 
promotion, instead of asking meekly, and first of 
all, " Show me the way that I should walk in," and 
woe to the father who when his son's eyes are mois- 
tened with compassion for the multitude, seeks to 
distract his attention and disturb his judgment by 
obtruding on his sight a vision of earthly greatness. 
We beheve that manj^ a young life has been clouded 
by this irreparable error in its beginning, either of 
not asking for a word from the Lord, or else of 



m 



grieving the Spirit of God whispering in his heart 
the admonition, " Let the dead bury their dead, but 
go thou and preach the kingdom of God." Pray ye, 
the Lord of the harvest that he will send forth 
laborers into His harvest. Look ye out, men and 
brethren, look ye out among you men of honest re- 
port, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we 
may appoint over this business. Lend xmto the 
Lord, father or mother, the goodliest of your 
young men, "even thy son, thine only son, whom 
thoulovest." We set this our earnest exhortation 
in the first place. With unanimous consent, and 
with all the urgency we can bring to this our offi- 
cial counsel, we entreat clergy and people to take 
away the reproach which must be ours while the 
children ask the bread of life, and there is no man 
that breaketh it unto them. 

Too often the Confirmation of our youths is de- 
ferred until it is too late so much as to consider the 
claims of the sacred ministry at all. We do not ad- 
vise that any be hastily brought to this holy ordi- 
nance, without careful instruction and self -scrutiny 
and earnest prayer to God. But we urge that in the 
just discharge of parental responsibility, you should 
encourage your sons as well as yovir daughters early 
to renew their covenant with God, and to make it a 
part of their self -consecration to choose their voca- 
tion in life according to His will, and not their own 
mere natural predilection. 

The passion of the age in which we 
live is Freedom. Its favorite watchword 
is Liberty. Noble words are these if we use them in 
their true significance. We purpose in this Pastoral 
to admonish you of the Glorious Liberty which ye 
have as covenanted children of God, and to exhort 
you that ye hold it fast. If the Son hath made you 
free, then are ye free indeed ; free to believe all that 
is true and notliing that is false, free to love all that 
is lovely and nothing that is evil; free to do all that 
is right and nothing that is wrong; free to covet all 
that is noble and naught that is vile. Such is Chris- 
tian Liberty, a freedom with hmitations indeed, 
but limited in those respects only wherein the ab- 
sence of restraint would be but another name for 
vassalage and cruel bondage. We desire to illus- 
trate the true meaning of the Christian Liberty 
whereof v/e speak in three several instances: 

1. The Faith you profess. 

2. The Obedience you render ; and 

3. The LoVe which should animate your service. 
1. The Liberty of Christian Faith. 

Have faith in God is the first precept of our holy 
religion. Confide in Him personally, the wise and 

fracious One, as implicitly as a child believes in his 
'ather. Believe His every spoken word, 
His instruction. His warning, and His 
promise ; for without such faith it is im- 
possible to please Him. But belief is neither 
blind credulity nor enforced assent. God has His 
witnesses in nature and in providence, and by the 
mouth of theseTmany witnesses it is proven that the 
Lord is loving unto every man, and His mercy is over 
all His works. In a higher sense, faith comes b y hear" 
ing, and relies upon that manifestation of the truth 
which commends itself to reason and to conscience. 
The sanctified intellect delights to explore every 
department of loiowledge, to decipher the strange 
legend impressed upon the once fluid rock, to unroll 
the papyrus, to analyze the mysterious processes of 
human thought and consciousness. But none the 
less are we free to recognize eternal truths, and, 
unappalled by mysteries or seeming contradictions, 
to affirm the verity of the Christian story, which it 
is unreasonable to deny. 

But who knows not the presence of an arrogant 
scepticism VN^hich, in view of our glorious liberty of 
believing that God is love and that His Son hath 
died, points at us the finger of derision as submit- 



ting to an intellectual bondage which dares not turii 
toward the light ? 

The Church seeks not to put out the eyes of scho- 
lars and investigators. She gladly welcomes all their 
contributions to human knowledge and to the 
wealth of human thought. But she warns 
her children, in the presence of these 
"little systems" which "have their day 
and cease to be," .that they must not enslave 
themselves to the tyranny of transient theories, and 
forego their right to hold fast that which is the 
same yesterday, to-day and for ever. 

Remember, Brethren, that the religion which we 
profess is a religion of fact. The Creed you recite 
is a rehearsal of events that have happened in the 
olden days, and of hopes surely founded thereon. 

Our religion rests upon a historical basis as im- 
pregnable as when St. Paul at Thessalonica for 
three Sabbath-days reasoned out of the Scriptures, 
opening and alleging that this Jesus whom I preach 
unto you is Christ. 

The mere history of the successive philosophers 
which have held sway in the intellectual world, is 
of itself a laborious study, and the discovery of 
revolutionary facts is constantly demanding the 
readjustment of hypothesis and theory. It is 
because the faith is sure and certain that its utter- 
ances cannot be always made to harmonize with the 
half-known and the variable. 

It is Freedom, not servitude, to hold fast the faith 
once delivered to the Saints. 

The Church has no quarrel with science. Far 
from it. She ever welcomes science as her ally and 
her friend. Her quarrel is not with science, but 
with science falsely so called. 

We warn you against the pretentious dogmatism, 
and especially against the atheistic materialism, 
which under the name of science presents, not its 
discoveries and its facts, but crude theories and ten- 
tative speculations. The long-exploded errors of 
the past are thus, like ghosts, rising from their 
graves, and seeking to resume their empire over 
human thought and human conduct, tempting men 
to revive a species of Paganism, and miscall it " the 
Advance of Science." 

2. The Liberty of Christian Discipline. — Almighty 
God has been pleased to give us, not only Faith, but 
a disciphne as well. Ye are free, and yet the Lord's 
freedmen. Admitted to the General Assembly and 
Church of the first born, ye are set in authority 
and under authority, set to rule over those whom 
God has confided to you, and admonished in turn to 
obey them that are over you in the Lord, and to 
submit yourselves to their just authority. 

And this appointed discipline is Liberty, not Bond- 
age. It is Liberty to be the members of a great 
army, instead of lonely adventurers — soldiers 
with a claim for guidance, protection, and 
sympathy, with a right to demand yo«r 
place beneath the shade and beside the wells of 
every Elim where the army fuids its camp ; it is 
Liberty to have over you in the Lord men who have 
not dominion over your faith, but are helpers of 
your joy, who preach Christ Jesus the Lord and 
themselves your servants for Jesus' sake, joying and 
rejoicing if they be offered up upon the sacrifice 
and service of your faith. 

The Divine Master is considerate of om' self-re- 
spect. He calls us, not servants, but friends. He, 
and His Church following His directions, have no 
secrets to hide from obedient and humble minds ; 
no arbitrary rules, no minute prescriptions to bind 
upon the faithful. 

What shall we say to these thitfgs ? Shall we, be- 
cause we are friends, cease to be dutiful ? Shall we, 
because we are under grace rather than law, scant 
our obedience, and betray the Master's honor that 
is confided to us ? As the very boldness with which 



425 



we may come to the throne of grace obliges us to 
prof ouuder reverence, so the large freedom we enjoy- 
in all the details of life and duty furnishes the high- 
est argument for circumspection and self-control. 

Our clergy have large liberty : shall they abuse 
the gentleness of Chi'ist and the patience of 
their mother, by pressing their own fancies 
and self-conceits to the utmost verge 
of canonical endurance ? Shall they usurp the func- 
tions of the body that commissions them, and seek 
to make that Church more Evangehcal or more 
Cathohc than her own formularies and Ritual 
affect to be ? When men asked John Baptist, Who 
art thou ? he answered, in effect, that he was no- 
body ; a voice in the wilderness, the mere breath of 
a divine utterance. How glorious is fche Liberty, 
how high the privilege, of the -clergy, to refrain 
from all self-assertion, to utter that only which God 
and His Church put into their mouths, and to afford 
the most signal example of that obedience of faith 
which obeys law because it is the law. 

It is a part of the Liberty wherewith Christ has 
made us free to lift up all our domestic life into the 
pure atmosphere of spiritual thought and feeling. 
Marriage is no longer a union of convenience, or a 
matter of civil contract. It is the one blessed heir- 
loom transmitted from the days of innocence, it is 
the type and emblem of that union which is betwixt 
Christ and the Church. The freedom of the chaste, 
pure. Christian home stands pre-eminent among the 
earthly blessings bestowed on us in Christ. 

Row is it, then, that some among you have pre- 
sumed to put away a wife except for the cause of 
fornication ? We are distressed to know that some, 
under pretext of a civil divorce, have without ade- 
quate cause dismissed an uncongenial wife or hus- 
band, and after marrying another, have profaned 
the holy sacrament by coming to it with a body 
thus defiled. 

Be ye well assured, brethren beloved, that what- 
ever license may be tolerated by society and by 
civil courts, if any persons be joined together other- 
wise than as God's Word doth allow, their marriage 
is not lawful. Be admonished that if any cleave 
not to his wife, but unlawfully marries another, and 
then comes to the table of the Lord, although he 
doth carnally and visibly press with his teeth (as 
Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of tlie Body 
and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise is he partaker of 
Christ, but rather, to his own condemnation doth 
eat and drink the sign or sacra.ment of so great a 
thing. 

In your freedom yet again, you are not under 
minute direction or prohibition concerning the man- 
ner of employing the Lord's day, the observances of 
domestic piety, the participation in amusements, or 
the accumulation of gain. Much trusted in all these 
particulars, how studious should you be to make the 
day of rest and praise honorable and holy, 
to maintain all the sanctities of the Christian home 
to avoid frivolity and riot, and to take care that 
charity as well as justice restrain you in asking all 
your dues, or in seeking your lawiul profit ! 

We tell you plainly that in these particulars some 
among you are greatly to be blamed. Whether it 
be due to the influence of a laxity of opinion im- 
ported among us from abroad, or to the demorali- 
zation of Continental travel, or to the want of lively 
interest in holy things, so it is that the Lord's Day 
is perverted from its sacred uses of rest and worship, 
while in many homes, throughout the week, no 
voice of prayer is heard at morning and at even- 
' ing, and even the daily bread is eaten without 
mention of God, the giver. Sadly do we need in all 
the land a revival of domestic piety, so that by fam- 
ily devotions, and the right use of the first day of 
the week, our homes may be kept clean and pure. 

Especially do we admonish you against that lax- 



ity of morals which tolerates the participation by 
Christian men and women in amusements which 
outrage decency and inevitably soil the purity of 
those who share in them. 

We specify plainly the numerous indecencies 
which are enacted on the stage, and the improper 
familiarity which characterizes some, not all, of the 
amusements of the social circle. Let our men value 
their own purity of thought, and our maidens be- 
lieve that modesty is now, as of old. an ornament, 
not a disgrace. And think not because you avoid 
the profanation of the Lord's Day and licentious 
shows and immodest dances, that all is well with 
you. There is a temptation, and a fearful one, to 
license of another sort : that unrestraint of the lust 
of gain which leads to usury and extortion — to 
gambling speculation, instead of honest toil. For 
such things just as certainly as for folly and dissipa- 
tion, God will surely call us into judgment. 

Before passing to other considerations, we can but 
pause and revert again'to the importance, if we would 
rear up a generation of saintly men and women, of 
teaching children to show piety at home. Catechi- 
sing by the clergy is a most valua.ble function of 
their holy ofiice, and Sunday-schools and Bible 
Classes, under their supervision and direction, are 
useful agencies in training the young. But neither 
Pastor nor teacher, however skilful, may exoner- 
ate the parent from his own responsibility. 
Christian fathers and mothers may not with- 
draw from a duty which they are so specially 
fitted to discharge. They must be at pains them- 
selves to instruct their children in the truths of re- 
ligion and to assist them by their counsels and en- 
couragements in the trials of their young Christian 
life. In the department of experimental and per- 
sonal religion, the parent who is loved and trusted by 
the child, and who in turn is well acquainted with the 
temper and disposition of the child, has it in his 
power to impart, howbeit in artless and untheologi- 
cal phrase, the most valuable lessons of holy wisdom 
and of practical godliness. 

Nor should religious education be arrested here. 
A long-established Canon reminds the Clergy, and 
the same duty is after their mamier binding on the 
laity in their more limited spiritual cures, "that 
they shall not only be diligent in instructing the 
children in the catechism, but shall also, by stated 
catechetical lectures and instruction, be diligent in 
informing the youth and others in the Doctrines, 
Constitution, and Liturgy of the Church." For the 
Church maintains the Faith in its purity and integrity 
as taught in the Holy Scriptures held by the primi- 
tive Church, summeci up in the Creeds, and affirmed 
by the undisputed General Councils ; herConstitution, 
attested by Holy Scripture and ancient authors, she 
has not invented, but inherited from the days of 
old ; her Liturgy was moulded by the breath of many 
saintly men. Your children should know the value 
of these precious gifts, and the grounds on which 
we receive and love them. In an age of indiffer- 
entism, when so many seek to reduce all religion to 
a sentiment, it is cruel to expose a child to the so- 
licitations of variant systems of belief and practice 
without a knowledge of the origin and history of 
the Church of Christ, and an intelligent understand- 
ing of the authority on which she relies for her 
doctrine and order. 

3. And lastly, we would admonish you of the pre- 
cious Liberty of Love. We are not under the rule. 
This do, or thou shalt die, but Love is the fulfilling 
of the law. We are free to love God with all our 
hearts, and the more we love Him the more Glorious 
is our Liberty. 

It becomes us not to ask whether He will be con- 
tent with less or more. He has given us blessing 
without stint, and we should render Him back love 
without measure. " The Son of God loved me and 



426 



gave himself for me." We love Him who first I 
loved us. With such thoughts in our hearts, obe- j 
dience is hberty, and trials become sweet, and the ! 
humblest offering finds its rich reward. The thought ; 
of God's love for sinners is the healing leaf which ' 
can sweeten the bitterest fountain at which we are j 
called to drink. i 

The Christian soul is sensitive to the love of God , 
and loves all things in Him and for His sake. It : 
loves even the dumb creatures He has made, because 
He condescends to be the God of the sparrow, and | 
considered the very cattle that were in Nineveh, i 
Gentleness to the animals which serve us, protection I 
to the dependent flock which typifies the chosen peo- 
ple of the Lord, pity for the callow brood in the 
fragile nest, are lessons which men of love are not 
ashamed to impress upon themselves and upon their 
children. Let us love the Church and lavish on it 
the very best we have. Men may ask in scorn. What 
is thy beloved more than another beloved ? but we 
know Christ loved the Church and gave Himself 
for it, and that she is His bride and the mother of 
His children. 

Let us love the stranger and the fatherless, the 
poor and him that hath no helper; let us love ! 
the vicious and the unlovely for the sake of that 
Love in whose image they were created ; nor let 
us be unmindful of the new commandment, 
that we Christians love one another, with 
pity, with courtesy, with patience, in honor prefer- 
ring one another, forbearing one another in love. 

"Chi'ist has founded His Church upon love." 
Thus wrote one of our Bishops in a day of strife and 
discord. "It is the highest of Christian gracesT" 
Now abideth Faith, Hope and Charity — ^these three, 
but the greatest of these is Charity. " Charity ! not 
mere almsgiving, which is only one of its manifes- 
tations, but Love — Christian Love. ... A new 
commandment give I unto you, that ye love one 
another. 

And this is truly not only the new command- 
ment, but the summary of all the commandments. 

The whole Gospel is redolent with it, with a 1 
broad, comprehensive, all-embracing love, ap- I 
pointed, like Aaron's rod, to swallow up all the I 
other Christian graces, and to manifest the spiritual 
glory of God in Christ. A Church without love ! 
What could you augur of a Church without Faith, 
or a Church of Christ without Hope ? But Love is I 
a higher grace than either Faith or Hope, and its j 
absence from the Church is just the absence of the 
very life-blood from the body." 

As these paternal counsels come to an end, we re- 
member that om's is a ministry of consolation, and 



that the Priests of the Lord are set to bless the peo- 
ple in the name of the Lord. Our hearts reach out 
after all the children of the Church thi*oughout this 
wide land, and scattered in all the countries of the 
world, and we invoke upon you the benediction of 
peace. 

May the blessing of God rest upon your homes, so 
that they shall be pure and happy, the very nur- 
series of a long line of kings and priests unto 
God ; and upon your farms and your merchandise, 
your labors and your business, so that your cup 
may run over, aboimding chiefly in that godliness 
with contentment which is great gain. May it rest 
upon your churches, so that they shall be to the sin- 
sick houses Of healing and to the great company of 
believers the very gate of heaven. May it abide 
upon the patient missionary, so that when most 
alone he shaU not be alone ; upon the bereaved, the 
sick, the dying, the tempted, and the friendless. 
May that blessing so abound that not one of you 
shall fall in the wilderness through unbehef, but 
that all may receive at last that sentence of which 
all earthly benediction is but the anticipation, the 
"Come, ye blessed children of my Father," 
which shall put away forever all sorrow and aU 
fear. 

We have it not in our hearts to restrain this our 
blessing to those only who are ready to accept it 
from us as from their fathers in the Lord. We re- 
member the many with whom, alas ! we are not in 
visible communion ; the many whom we have rea- 
son to fear misunderstand us and count us not as 
partners ; the man7y' who, for lack of right guidance, 
have discarded most necessary articles of Christian 
belief, but who, even in their error, long for truth 
and light. On aU such we invoke the grace that 
guides and the mercy that saves. Grace be with all 
them that love our Liord Jesus Christ in sincerity ! 

While thus we reach out towards our children 
and our brethren the hand of benediction, we may 
not neglect to lift our eyes heavenward, and to 
ascribe aU the glory and all the praise of our poor 
endeavors to Him who alone teacheth man wisdom 
and strengtheneth his hands for good. 

Blessing and honor and glory and power 
BE UNTO Him that sitteth upon the throne, 

AND UNTO THE LaME FORE^rSR AND EVER ! 

Amen. 

The concluding prayers were said, and the Bene- 
diction was pronounced, by the Right Rev. Ben- 
jamin Bosworth Smith, d.d.. Bishop of Kentucky. 

The Bishops thereupon retired, and the President 
declared the House of Deputies adjourned sine 
die. 



